| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<e5f5c904560a535430fa648d32297a2b@www.novabbs.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: mhx@iae.nl (mhx) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World" Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 15:42:04 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <e5f5c904560a535430fa648d32297a2b@www.novabbs.com> References: <87bjtn2hct.fsf@gmail.com> <2025Apr7.084256@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <c7b8e285289ed63448289ee84d1f5b36eab45557@i2pn2.org> <nnd$52bd8a99$2cfa4611@2813463487325c8d> <05376993a82bd98bd2bb808b6d70d88a0c19891f@i2pn2.org> <cbb106be3daee91e2680165287cd6ca6560245b9@i2pn2.org> <nnd$4e97017c$71179fa7@ab267a929dfc81b6> <vt5rrb$mr2p$1@dont-email.me> <077656b5c422bbcbdf53452c341a0af4700b5fa5@i2pn2.org> <vt8eqq$316s1$1@dont-email.me> <f4cf5fff1a2239f3b7f6e8ccce00969d0925f1e3@i2pn2.org> <vtb62k$1ni2k$1@dont-email.me> <7e76f6f1dec1a3bb5a0e8f33eb80089ed47e8e00@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4107949"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="J+nubxJRM7ncpF4l6KLO+OONWmFAYJHVJegfwQXJ8vc"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Posting-User: 4e0dc1fdad1ead10b39e7eb5db19bf73d73e3ab3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$DlFs1v2yFl93SxdtRsI7h.XTLAafDBxrt9YFqUl6/FYOphvWNVUna Bytes: 2404 Lines: 19 > This is likely to have been a factor in Intel's decision to use > 80-bits internally. Maybe they needed 80 bits to print a binary 64-bit float in BCD for COBOL compilers. However, one needs a few hundred bits to correctly represent a binary 56-bit significand in decimal, so maybe it is only enough for single-precision floats? For sure, high-quality libraries do not rely on 80-bit extended precision for decimal output - I remember even the MASM library had special code for that. The real problem in practice is what to do when the user calculates, e.g., sin(x)/x for x near 0, or inverts a 10,000 x 10,000 matrix. My approach is that the user knows the precision of what he wants to see (if not, we have no problem and can do anything), and his problem is what the result *looks like* on the screen, on paper, or to other programs. And it is not only the digits, it also +/-NaN, +/-Infinity, and maybe the payload of these specials.