Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?

In article <200806291902548930-dannagle@verizonnet>,
Dan Nagle <dannagle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My _current_ computers, yes. What say you of my future computers?

That they're irrelevant to the historical point I'm making?

BTW, if my calculators count as computers (programmable, but no Fortran),
then not all are binary. You're dancing on a slippery slope.

I owned HP calculators too. That's irrelevant to the point, which was
about actual historical people using PL/I on actual computers screwing
up the 36- to 32-bit transition thanks to a Fortran-like KIND
specifier.

So if you ask for a kind
which doesn't fit into 32 bits, you have a requirement that your type
won't fit into 32 bits. If we're talking about an integer, then this is
extremely inefficient on a processor which doesn't have any integer
type in hardware bigger than 32 bits.

One of the few requirements (in f08) of kinds is that
at least one kind of integer must support
about 18 decimal digits (that is, 64 bits).

Even then, you have the further problem of programs getting much
slower thanks to using overly-long data types.

Now, I'll admit that it's unlikely that we'll have another 36- to
32-bit transition any time soon. But I'm pretty sure you're completely
missing the historical lesson to be learned, while you quibble away.
Suit yourself.

-- greg


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Top Ten May/Jun 2005
    ... > how do other DJs handle this? ... Just slot in the new stuff where you know it'll fit and when people ... you know will carrying on dancing are, ...
    (uk.people.gothic)
  • Re: What is "static mobile"???...
    ... When I made the transition from CB to Amateur Radio I too tried to fit in by ... adopting the formula that was around when I arrived... ...
    (uk.radio.amateur)