Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

trpl: Invalid byte size terminology #28461

Closed
baskerville opened this issue Sep 17, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

trpl: Invalid byte size terminology #28461

baskerville opened this issue Sep 17, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@baskerville
Copy link
Contributor

The following terms are used in the-stack-and-the-heap.md: gigabyte, GB.
But a gigabyte is 10^9 bytes, not 2^30.
The correct terms are: gibibyte, GiB.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Given the news in https://users.rust-lang.org/t/the-rust-programming-language-is-going-to-be-published-by-no-starch-press/2777 , I'm going to wait to ask my editor what they think before pursing this one way or another.

If we do, then #28441 should be re-opened and applied.

@nagisa
Copy link
Member

nagisa commented Sep 17, 2015

OP is right. There’s a non-trivial difference between G- and Gi-. This confusion usually stems from the long-term storage device manufacturers who try to sell less for more using two very similarly sounding units.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

OP is right in a technical sense, but almost everyone uses the more colloquial version, and I'm concerned about obscuring understanding.

@baskerville
Copy link
Contributor Author

Before the standardization, the term gigabyte was ambiguous. It's no longer the case.

By not using the proper term you're willingly allowing the ambiguity to persist.

You can always add a footnote explaining why it's important to use the right term.

steveklabnik added a commit to steveklabnik/rust that referenced this issue Nov 6, 2015
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this issue Nov 7, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants