instruction set architecture names:

amd64 - correct

x86-64 - intel trying to erase AMD’s contribution

x86_64 - intel, but in a target triple

x64 - microsoft visual studio

…

arm64 - correct

aarch64 - underemployed marketing bods with no taste trying to justify their existence by making things worse

@fanf pretty much 😬

a funny thing @david_chisnall shared https://lobste.rs/s/ofacpc/what_hell_is_target_triple#c_jka3kr

suggests that apple’s name arm64 was the original and aarch64 was invented by arm later on the way to announcing it

@fanf this analysis makes no allowance for ease of confusion. You've chosen as correct the two architecture names that look most like each other if you read them in a hurry! At least aarch64 and x86-64 are visually extremely distinct.

i wish electronics manufacturers would name their products more like a librarian in charge of an archive of data sheets, with more awareness of the importance of ontologies and classification

@simontatham but they don’t line up nicely in columns!

@fanf Arm always used AArch64, but Apple just used the informal name (Arm32 was also not an official name).

@fanf yes, which another way they're easier to tell apart!

@fanf The techies quite possibly did, as engineering working names, but the final names are chosen by the marketroids.

@fanf ISTR em64t was intel trying to erase amd64, and x86-64 was the compromise second draft.

@simontatham @fanf it'll be even more confusing when amd64 and arm64 are joined by ard64, the custom processor for the fan-built 21st-century PERQ

@fanf,

x32: amd64, but with 32-bit ints, long ints and pointers.

x32: x86, according to some who were misled by x64.

@fanf Actually, x86-64 is the original name AMD gave for that architecture, back before Intel decided to also adopt it: https://web.archive.org/web/20000817014037/http://www.x86-64.org/