[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: small integers, numerical efficiency
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (John Lewis)
- Subject: Re: small integers, numerical efficiency
- From: moon (David A. Moon)
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 15:56:46 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (John Lewis)
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 14:37:25 EST
> David Moon (i recall) commented that he would rather see
> floating point removed from Dylan than have a half-baked numeric
> system like that in C. ....
I did not say those last four words.
What I said was that I think a Dylan implementation would be better off
leaving out floating point entirely than putting in floating point but not
doing it efficiently.
Then from a language point of view, we could decide that few implementations
will want to bother doing floating point efficiently, and therefore remove it
from the language, or we could make it optional in the language, or we could
leave the language the way it is and some implementations could announce that
they only support a subset. Personally I prefer making it optional over
either extreme. Floating point is not the only thing in the Dylan book that
ought to be optional.
Also, C's integer numeric system is half-baked, but its floating-point numeric
system is not particularly bad. I say enough bad things about C that you
don't need to misquote me disparaging a part of C that doesn't bother me!