Menotim

This is a response to the post We Write Numbers Backward, in which lsusr argues that little-endian numerical notation is better than big-endian.[1] I believe this is wrong, and big-endian has a significant advantage not considered by lsusr. Lsusr describes reading the number "123" in little-endian, using the following algorithm: * Read the first digit, multiply it by its order of magnitude (one), and add it to the total. (Running total: ??? one.) * Read the second digit, multiply it by its order of magnitude (ten), and add it to the total. (Running total: ??? twenty one.) * Read the third digit, multiply it by its order of magnitude (one hundred), and add it to the total. (Arriving at three hundred and twenty one.) He compares it with two algorithms for reading a big-endian number. One is using the same process as for a little-endian number, but from right to left. I agree with him that this is worse than the little-endian algorithm, because it is easier to read a number in the same direction as the text that surrounds it, which in English is from left to right. The other big-endian algorithm is the one I observe myself as usually using. For "321", it is: * Count the digits (three), and convert that into an order of magnitude (one hundred). (Running total: ??? hundred ???.) * Read the first digit, multiply it by its order of magnitude (one hundred), and add it to the total. (Running total: three hundred ???.) * Read the second digit, multiply it by its order of magnitude (ten), and add it to the total. (Running total: three hundred and twenty ???. * Read the third digit, multiply it by its order of magnitude (one), and add it to the total. (Arriving at three hundred and twenty one.) The point raised by lsusr against the big-endian algorithm is that we must count a number's digits before we can start reading them. He doesn't say explicitly why he dislikes this, but I can see three reasons: 1. It makes the algorithm more complex. 2. It makes the algori