| ▲ | xhkkffbf 9 hours ago | |
Octets? Don't you mean "bytes"? Or is that word problematic now? | ||
| ▲ | theragra 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
I wonder if OP used "octets" because physical pattern in the CD used to represent a byte is a sequence of 17 pits and lands. BTW, byte size during the history varied from 4 to 24 bit! Even now, based on interpretation, you can say 16 bit bytes do exist. Char type can be 16 bit on some DSP systems. I was curious, so I checked. Before this comment, I only knew about 7 bit bytes. | ||
| ▲ | asveikau 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
The term octets is pretty common in network protocol RFCs, maybe their vocabulary is biased in the direction of that writing. | ||
| ▲ | ralferoo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Personally, I prefer the word "bytes", but "octets" is technically more accurate as there are systems that use differently sized bytes. A lot of these are obsolete but there are also current examples, for example in most FPGA that provide SRAM blocks, it's actually arranged as 9, 18 or 36-bit wide with the expectation that you'll use the extra bits for parity or flags of some kind. | ||