consider switching to byte(s) notation for primitive types, instead of bits

[gintominto5329]

example : u8(unsigned integer ,8 bytes) vs. u64(unsigned integer ,64 bits) ,u1 vs. u8

Because bits(un-aligned to a byte ,or power of 2) are highly unlikely to come back.

and the bits usage is merely historical

[jonmeow]

The specific i32 naming scheme was chosen to be consistent Rust; C++ uses int32_t and similar, while Swift uses Int32. Bits show up in many places in computing: CPUs (x86-64, amd64), OS (64-bit Windows), checksums (sha256), etc. Disk and RAM are typically in bytes, although bandwidth again in bits. Familiarity is important; I'm not aware of any programming language that defines something such as Int4 as 4-bytes.

There's also a question of what it means for transitioning developers. In a byte-based syntax, i8 (64-bit), i16 (128-bit), i32 (256-bit), and i64 (512-bit) would all be valid, per design to better support large integers. As a consequence, if a developer writes code mis-applying the familiar bit syntax, the translation between bits and bytes would likely result in valid but bug-prone programs. For example, var a: i32 = 1 << 30; is valid regardless of whether i32 is 32 bits or 32 bytes, but performance bugs should be expected if that's 32 bytes. Runtime crashes could result too, for example if someone incorrectly assumes i8 is only 8 bits and can safely be cast to a Char.

Elsewhere within the syntax, bit shift operators will also remain prevalent.

Leaning into common precedent takes advantage of existing expectations in order to create an easier learning curve. Both bit and byte syntax are common in computing, but there's a lot of value in being able to say: on a 64-bit CPU with a 64-bit OS, where someone might use int64_t in C++, use i64 in Carbon.

[gintominto5329]

I understand your point ,of familiarity ,and psychology.

But ,may i have your opinion ,on ,is byte-based naming more correct ,now?

thanks

[chandlerc]

I don't think it's any more (or less) correct.

As was mentioned, there remain lots of uses of bits to directly articulate width.