It's always amazing to me that abstractions are so fragile in practice we still haven't managed to fully abstract over numbers.https://twitter.com/JonMLevine/status/1044950721857298432 …
-
-
Replying to @jeanqasaur
Depends on what you mean by “numbers”. We’ve had pretty good abstractions for integers for half a century, we don’t use them because ZOMGFAST. Reals are hopeless, of course.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stephentyrone @jeanqasaur
I would not say that there exists a good integer abstraction that also generally works in the low-level parts of an OS kernel
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Sure there is. Static arbitrary precision where inability to determine static bound is a compile time error.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
See, Rich is the absolutist. I’m the pragmatic one who will allow you a runtime error handler =)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Nobody writes runtime handlers that do anything except BUG_ON();
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @stephentyrone and
In any case, a runtime check is only meaningful with runtime sizing, meaning your language model has allocation going on under the hood, which means it's not suitable for low level programming of any sort.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The beauty of static arbitrary precision is that it all compiles down to just the number of positions/carries you need. Imagine writing 4096-bit RSA with just normal arithmetic ops and having The Right Thing come out. :-)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.