[notalaser]

"Octet" is still commonly used and in no way archaic. In fact, most standards use "octet" instead of "byte" because, despite IEC having said otherwise in IEC 80000-13, most other references still define the byte as the smallest addressable unit that can represent any member of the host system's character set.

Notably, C99 (and its predecessors) follow this convention. Owing to history, and the curiosities and resolution constraints of fixed-point arithmetics, a lot of devices with a DSP in it think a byte is anything but 8 bits.

There used to be systems that used 5, 6 or 7 bits for a byte, too, but as far as I know, most of those really have gone the way of the Dodo. However, since most of those systems were used in fields like telecom (and they weren't only what we'd call "computers" nowadays), "octet", rather than "byte", is still commonly used in virtually every networking-related context.

[jasonm23]

True, but I think calling this usage archaic is still ok(ish) unless we are in pedantic mode, and of course sometimes we must.

Since you say yourself, non-8 bit bytes are no longer at large.

I agree certainly that in networking and when dealing with just legacy ASCII, byte is an imprecise term.

[notalaser]

I think I was a bit too careful not to hyperbolize and I ended up doing the opposite. Non-8-bit bytes are still very common in terms of numbers. For instance, SHARC DSPs, (unfortunately...) one of the most popular DSP family, operates with 32-bit bytes, if my (repressed) memory serves correctly. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot, lot more deployments of such systems than iPhones. Same goes for telecom and friends. There are a lot of such systems, I'm mentioning SHARC because it's the one I programmed most recently and can probably still do a decent job answering questions about it.

Given the different programming : manufacturing ratio of these systems, I'm not surprised that they see less exposure in the programming community, but it's not a matter of pedantry, it's really a matter of correct use and not being creeped out when the compiler insists that sizeof(char) and sizeof(int) are both 1, on a 32-bit machine.