Subject:
|
Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 May 1999 12:23:06 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
stephen p spackman <stephen@acm(nospam).org>
|
Viewed:
|
1212 times
|
| |
|
|
Kekoa Proudfoot wrote:
>
> stephen p spackman <stephen@acm.org> wrote:
> > But what does it benefit us? *This* is creeping featurism at its worst:
> > FORTRAN has it, so we should too.... In my entire professional life I've
> > never had an application for floating point.
>
> Floating point is easier to use than fixed point for many. Not that I need
> floating point, I can figure out the math and use fixed point. Moreover, I
> can use GCC and Librcx/LegOS and program at the lowest-level too!
>
> My point is that some people - the ones who the byte code is being targeted
> for - want the convenience of floating point. The tradeoff I mentioned
> before was between space and functionality/usefulness. The amount of
> usefulness is fixed; the space is not. If I can write a satisfying set of
> floating point routines in very small amount of space, that might be worth
> including as part of a byte code interpreter.
But suppose for instance that we were talking about a language like Java
that has static typing. Why not put support for fixed point into the
compiler. It would then have ZERO impact on the runtime, not even new
library routines, and still let you do the calculations you want in the
notation you want - with a simpler semantics to boot.
Anyway, sorry if I was sounding exasperated; I'm persistently bewildered
by the extent to which computer people (informaticians) like their tools
and seek to perpetuate what seem - from my specialised background! -
very clear mistakes.
stephen
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) For Java specificallly, it can't be in the compiler since it would no longer be Java. However, you could easily have a FixedPoint class which implements Number and use that. Since Java doesn't support operator methods you have clunky syntax (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) This is a possibility I had not thought of, also worth thinking about more. It certainly complicates the compiler writer's job, but aside from that it sounds like a reasonable of doing things. -Kekoa (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) Floating point is easier to use than fixed point for many. Not that I need floating point, I can figure out the math and use fixed point. Moreover, I can use GCC and Librcx/LegOS and program at the lowest-level too! My point is that some (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
