Reading a book I was redirected to "On holy wars and a plea for peace" paper by Danny Cohen, which covers the "holy war" between big-endians and little-endians considering byte-order.
Reaching the summary of the memory section I got confused as the author sais:
To the best of my knowledge only the Big-Endians of Blefuscu have built systems with a consistent order which works across chunk-boundaries, registers, instructions and memories. I
failed to find a Little-Endians' system which is totally consistent.
Which kind of contradicts his previous text sections covering little-endian:
When they add the bit order and the byte order they get:
...|---word2---|---word1---|---word0---| ....|C3,C2,C1,C0|C3,C2,C1,C0|C3,C2,C1,C0| .....|B31......B0|B31......B0|B31......B0|
In this regime, when word W(n) is shifted right, its LSB moves into the MSB of word W(n-1). 4
English text strings are stored in the same order, with the first character in C0 of W0, the next in C1 of W0, and so on.
This order is very consistent with itself, with the Hebrew language, and (more importantly) with mathematics, because significance increases with increasing item numbers (address).
he even lateron sais:
The Big-Endians struck again, and without any resistance got their way. The decimal number 12345678 is stored in the VAX memory in this order:
7 8 5 6 3 4 1 2 ...|-------long0-------| ....|--word1--|--word0--| .....|-C1-|-C0-|-C1-|-C0-| ......|B15....B0|B15....B0|
This ugliness cannot be hidden even by the standard Chinese trick.
How did the author get to this completely different conclusion on overall consistency?
An answer does not have to only base on the text, but may also include other sources which might clear up how the statement is sound.