kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 6 days ago
why did they only use an 8-bit number to count billionaires , surely there are more of em
/dumbface
kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 6 days ago
why did they only use an 8-bit number to count billionaires , surely there are more of em
/dumbface
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 6 days ago
What are you, one-based or something? If it were an 8-bit integer there would have been 255.
kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 6 days ago
it’s 255 for maximum index, but still 256 for maximum count though lol but agreed, 255 would be more obvious
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 6 days ago
Well still 255 for maximum count if you’re using an 8-bit number to COUNT billionaires like your initial comment said - but if you’re using an 8-bit number to index your collection of billionaires, then yes, you could get up to 256.
For counting we should always at least have the possibility of a 0 value, hence we count actual billionaires from 1-255. With indexing, 0 is already the first billionaire, so we get billionaires from 0-255, or a total of 256
abir_v@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Yes, 8 bit indexing. We should have Null billionaires.