[wakawaka28]

The lack of explicitly sized ints is actually a pro-portability feature but it prioritizes speed and ease of implementation of arithmetic operations over bitwise operations. The minimum ranges for each type can be used as a guide for average users to write correct and portable arithmetic and carefully-written bitwise operations. But most people would rather not think about the number of bits being variable at all.

[wat10000]

Sort of. It was kind of handy when int would be the natural machine size, 16-bit on 16-bit hardware, 32 on 32. But making int be 64-bit leaves a gap, so it’s generally stuck at 32-but even on 64-bit hardware. And then people couldn’t agree on whether long should be 32 or 64 on 64-bit platforms, so now none of the basic integer types will typically give you the natural machine size on both 32 and 64-bit targets. At this point, if you want the “biggest integer that goes fast on this hardware” then your best bet is probably intptr_t or size_t.

[wakawaka28]

There were/are machines where the char size is not 8 bits, and the ints are not sized in powers of 2. These machines are now rare but I think they still exist. This references some historical examples: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/12794/wer...