 | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think... —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | (...) 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... —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | | (...) I see what you like about having a FixedPoint type and being able to say a = b.Multiply(c) This gives you the flexibility to add modules as you need them by dumping all the work onto the compiler, which is not a bad place if you are not the (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think... —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | | | (...) If it is an object oriented language, it isn't the compiler writer it is a library writer. (...) Assuming the language has the flexibility, you could certainly do the FP emulation in the library as well. However, you lose the ability to take (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think... —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | | | (...) I meant that the compiler writer now needs to support objects, which is a bit of extra work over what I have imagined the compiler writer putting into this. I did not state this clearly by any means. I agree, it also adds work for the library (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think... —stephen p spackman
|
| | | | (...) Those who think Java is a good idea are already discussing using variants. (...) Um, C family languages were obsolete before their introduction. Von Neumann thought that floating point was a bad idea, he was right then and he's right now. If (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
