To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 4901
4900  |  4902
Subject: 
Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Thu, 6 May 1999 12:34:30 GMT
Original-From: 
stephen p spackman <stephen@acm=nomorespam=.org>
Viewed: 
1174 times
  
John A. Tamplin wrote:

On Wed, 5 May 1999, stephen p spackman wrote:

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.

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 like a=b.multiply(c) etc, but it works.

Those who think Java is a good idea are already discussing using
variants.

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to.  Floating point and fixed
point each have their proper place.  Personally, what I want is an
environment flexible enough to accomodate what each person wants and
modular enough to do it without negatively impacting people who don't
want it.

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 you're really interested in flexibility and
modularity, what possible attraction can a C-family language have? Even
with local classes Java is still not providing proper support for basuic
abstraction.

That sort of thing.

I'm a space alien.

stephen
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics



Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (25 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR