Towards the end, Lomont writes:
[A]n amazing number of people guessed the bug had something to do with the 65536 row limit, showing the flaws in belief in numerology.
Um, it's a power of 2? Somehow it's not surprising that powers of 2 occur in a lot of distinct places with binary computers. (Hence the "correlation is not causation" tag on this entry -- the number of rows didn't cause the bug, nor vice versa, but both were caused by the fact that the internal architecture of the computer is binary.)
1 comment:
After reading the explanation of the problem, it was only "sort of" a binary bug. The programmers used FFFF as an end-of-table marker, and the bug centers around the test for that marker. Granted, FFFF is a common list sentinel because it's at the edge of the 16-bit universe, but another, non-binaryish value might have been used.
Post a Comment