Many thanks for your positive feedback.

Regarding endianness. I like the relation to Gulliver’s Travels and the fact that the Lilliputians are called Little-Endians because they open a boiled egg on the little end. I see no problem in continuing to use the terms little-endian, big-endian or bi-endian. They are well defined and not discriminating IMO.

Being raised by conservative parents who nonetheless taught us – emphatically – that “words can hurt”, I have always paid attention to ontology. Your new terms have another major advantage: clarity. The terms themselves either encompass the definition or, at the very least, indicate their meaning directly rather than euphamistically.

An example of a self-defining term is “exclusion list”. It could not be any clearer.

An example of a term with a direct meaning is “agent”. Why use a euphamism, when a word whose meaning is commonly understand exists? The use of euphamisms requires all to know both it and the context of its use.

One further suggestion for the industry: let’s stop using the terms “big endian” and “little endian”. No doubt these were coined as memory mnemonics, but their use is and always was in poor taste, not to mention too cute by half. The terms “big ending” and “little ending” work just fine for me.

Thanks again,

Michael Milligan
Layton, Utah