>>29We are talking about C programming language, not English language.
>>34 and to some extent
>>27Not all platforms implement uint8_t, for example 16 bit TI DSPs. Because of that, char is much more portable type, because it means smallest addressable type on given architecture (except when architecture allows smaller chars than 8 – the lower limit of C standard). And as
>>34-kun stated, sizeof(char) is always 1. Types whose size is not a multiply of char have no right to exist on such architectures in a native way.