Talk:Arbitrary-precision integers (included): Difference between revisions

==Use of external libraries==

 

I ''strongly'' recommend allowing the use of external libraries in the case where the language doesn't have inherent bignum support. Otherwise, you would need a more generalized task, and I don't see a point to the example code duplication that would require. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 08:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

:::As for organising another task with or without this or that, I leave that to others as already, many flowers bloom and I wander without guide. There does not seem to be a facility for grouping related tasks, or multiple parts of a larger task, or even cross-referencing tasks. Just a flat list of tasks ordered alphabetically and with not always helpful choices of the first word. A tree-structure? But the A.B.etc, B.X.etc ordering won't work when it is not clear which should be the first-level keywords. This is a matter for the design of RC's presentation, which I know little about, and I see a lot of scope for disagreement. [[User:Dinosaur|Dinosaur]] ([[User talk:Dinosaur|talk]]) 07:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

::::Just for fun: even languages with builtin multiprecision may have additional libraries, for good reasons. For instance, Python has big integers, but the gmpy2 library is linked to GMP, which is way faster than the standard Python integers (plus it also adds multiprecision floats, which are not in the base Python distribution). It makes very little sense to only allow what is included in the bare language: who programs in C++ without BOOST? Who programs in Fortran without LAPACK? Who programs in Lisp without ASDF or even QuickLisp and a bunch of libraries? Who programs, in any language, a GUI without a GUI library? (rarely included, and even when it is, it's never the only one) It's a basic fact of programming that one should not reinvent the wheol but reuse, hence it would be perfectly correct to link to an external library. That's how it ''should'' be done in real life. But, bitter truth, this is not the present task. I'll write another one, maybe. This is really silly. Feel free to quibble about what Fortran could have been sixty years ago, it's almost as useless as the rest of the task! [[User:Arbautjc|Arbautjc]] ([[User talk:Arbautjc|talk]]) 18:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 

== Criteria for Non-Draft? ==

:I'm pretty sure there are no criteria. It's just a consensus. This one seems to still have a little discussion going on about how we want it to work so maybe we should wait to make it a full task. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

::Whoops. I've changed it already due to the number of examples. Please put it back in draft if you think it needs it though. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 

==“Precision”==

::''"In computer science, arbitrary-precision arithmetic is a technique whereby calculations are performed on numbers whose digits of precision are limited only by the available memory of the host system. This contrasts with the faster fixed-precision arithmetic found in most ALU hardware, which typically offers between 6 and 16 decimal digits. It is also called bignum arithmetic, and sometimes even "infinite-precision arithmetic" (which is a misnomer, since the number of digits is both finite and bounded in practice)."''

: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 

==Ursala took a day?==

On my four year old laptop, the Python version took around a minute to run. Maybe the Ursala version should not have used BCD if another representation is available? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 

== Time constriction? ==

----

Copied from [[User talk:Short Circuit]]:

 

== Does the Clojure entry count the digits? ==

--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 

==Move timings to the talk pages==

I'm not sure that timings should be included in answers except maybe in general terms, as [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ The Computer Language Benchmarks Game] does it in a more rigourous way and yet still points out [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/dont-jump-to-conclusions.php issues]. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 

 

::Thanks Kernigh. I know I prefer it this way rather than having to out-do TCLBG. What do others think? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 

=== Timings with AMD Phenom II X2 560 ===

# C with GMP: 0m0.04s

# Ruby 1.9.2: 0m0.52s

 

--[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 03:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 

== Missing output ==

Cosmetic edits made to the task page at 05:58, 24 July 2016 , including the injection of spaces around expressions in <math> tags, left the main expression completely invisible to all browsers which display the graphic file version of formulae rather than processing the MathML (this is, in fact, the majority of browsers). The MediaWiki processor does not currently expect such spaces, and generates syntactically ill-formed HTML if they are introduced. Other aspects of these cosmetic edits may further compound the problem. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

: Repaired [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 00:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 

==failure of ooRexx using Classic REXX example==

ooRexx gives me

 

Error 26 running Z:\huge.rex line 5: Invalid whole number

Error 26.8: Operand to the right of the power operator (**) must be a whole number; found "2.6214E+5"

No answer yet. numeric digits 6 at the start fixes the problem for ooRexx --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 18:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)