beyond CS proofs, static types in num computing are nice bc easier to read, implement, & understand algos.
-
-
Quite agree; JS may evolve to have optional static types but not clear yet how this works in browsers. Meanwhile+
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @kgryte and
many programmers need wider integer type than fits in 53-bit mantissa of JS number type, so on to next evo-hop.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Agreed. But current evo hop seems, as you said, compiler writer oriented. The ergo for users less so.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
My understanding is the largest class of BigInt users will not be doing calculations with them
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Which class of BigInt users do you mean?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
E.g., people passing around something they got from a protobuf, could be a GUID, file size, etc
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Assumption/evidence? protobuf field values sometimes feed into arithmetic.
@wycats may have relevant experience.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @littledan and
indeed. Our code does heavy math on values transported via protobufs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @littledan and
Would you do 64-bit math, as an obv. extension -- or are you doing it now the hard way?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
we use real numeric types in Java and do it the slow way in JS. Would like to change tho.
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.