User talk:Petelomax: Difference between revisions
→Use of Factorization Wheels in Sieves: reply, no bug...
GordonBGood (talk | contribs) (→Use of Factorization Wheels in Sieves: reply, no bug...) |
|||
Line 72:
:::: In short, Phix seems to me to be too much of a "work in progress" and as it currently exists not worth my while in pursuing further adaptation of my algorithms to it. However, as before, good luck to you, and I may look at it again if some of these issues are fixed.--[[User:GordonBGood|GordonBGood]] ([[User talk:GordonBGood|talk]]) 05:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
::::: No worries. There never was and probably never will be a programming language with no downsides, some we can live with, some we cannot. Many thanks for the input, will try to bear it all in mind as I move onward. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 00:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Sorry, I was mistaken: there is no bug on the `-0x40000000` or `-0x3FFFFFFF - 1`, rather I got caught by there being a difference between using `?` used as a shorthand to print to screen which adds a "newline" automatically and `print(1,...)` which does not automatically add the newline. I saw the next value printed immediately beside, which was a float, to be part of the integer printed. Your documentation on `?` does mention this difference but I hadn't read it.
:::::: As to language safety, blocking "subscripts" when they are out of range of a "sequence" is commonly done as part of language safety, but blocking integer overflows that can't be turned off is not or at least can commonly be turned off, as it doesn't cause a crash or a security hole but only potentially an error in programming logic. There are quite a few languages that do detect it, but most of the ones that I know have a way of turning it off. Anyway, not a big issue as there are ways of compensating when it's desired, but without inlined bit manipulations they may be expensive in performance.
:::::: As to language preferences, yes, lately I have come to prefer functional languages, which Phix in no way pretends to be functional as it is hard to imagine a language which is more imperative. I have been tempted to try Elixir (which might be considered to be a language of similar capabilities as Phix, but functional) for that reason, but which again I don't expect to be a highly performant language - just interesting...--[[User:GordonBGood|GordonBGood]] ([[User talk:GordonBGood|talk]]) 06:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
| |||