News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by falcor84 on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @06:43PM (#44818722)
We just need 3 valued electronics
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by skissane on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @06:54PM (#44818802)
The Soviets had ternary computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun

Then they decided to abandon their indigenous technology in favour of copying Western designs

Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by jojobas on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @11:06PM (#44820173)
There was a very good reasons for it, indigenous designs were obsolete by the time they left the drawing boards and countless design bureaus cost stupid amounts of money while producing dozens of incompatible computers. By the time they decided to adopt ES EVM they lagged by some 5 years and continued to lag further behind.
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by nxobject on Thursday August 07, 2025 @01:55AM (#44821073)
Conversely, the Soviet Union took the PDP-11 ISA to its limits... including home computers with framebuffers and programmable calculators.
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by dale_glass on Thursday August 07, 2025 @05:04AM (#44822245)
Setun apparently used two bits to represent a ternary value, wasting the 4th state.
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by bux93 on Thursday August 07, 2025 @06:16AM (#44822687)
We call that 1.58 bit now..
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by pif on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @07:07PM (#44818888)
It already exists: True, False and FileNotFound.

If you don't believe me, just ask Paula Bean.

Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by ForOldHack on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @08:03PM (#44819271)
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by gavinsyancey on Thursday August 07, 2025 @01:19AM (#44820868)
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by colejohnson66 on Thursday August 07, 2025 @09:56AM (#44824518)
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by percentcer on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @06:44PM (#44818727)
on, off, and the other thing
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by tyingq on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @06:55PM (#44818812)
hi-z is one choice. Though I don't know how well that does past a certain speed.
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by duskwuff on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @07:36PM (#44819088)
It works poorly at any speed. Hi-Z is an undriven signal, not a specific level, so voltage-driven logic like (C)MOS can't distinguish it from an input that's whatever that signal happens to be floating at. In current-driven logic like TTL or ECL, it's completely equivalent to a lack of current.
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by tyingq on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @08:35PM (#44819434)
I wasn't pitching it as a solid commercial idea. Just that you can get (perhaps fiddly) three states out into the real world with something cheap that already exists. Like: https://idle-spark.blogspot.com/2015/04/low-cost-n-ary-dacs-...
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by ForOldHack on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @08:05PM (#44819279)
Using 8 way quadrature and high-z, you have 16 values packed into 1 quasi-hexalogic gate. May your hydration prove fruitful.
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by mzajc on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @07:15PM (#44818938)
null :)
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by dcuthbertson on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @09:12PM (#44819605)
On, off, and ooh shiny!
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by ochrist on Thursday August 07, 2025 @05:01AM (#44822235)
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by ForOldHack on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @08:01PM (#44819259)
But with 5 valued electronics, Up, down, left, right and charm...

You could have the equivalent of 45-bit numbers ( 44 + parity ). And you could have the operands of two 15 bit numbers and their result encoded in 9 quint-bits or quits. Go pro or go home.

Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by falcor84 on Thursday August 07, 2025 @10:32AM (#44824967)
But, but, what about Strange?
Re:We'd be Better Off with 9-bit Bytes by magicalhippo on Thursday August 07, 2025 @11:22AM (#44825682)
Technically e would be best IIRC, but hard to implement, so 3 is the closest.