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)

 

:::I note the remarks in the Algol68 example about strictly speaking, and so therefore, those entries that involve external features or explicit routines for performing multi-precision should indeed be ejected as not conforming to the task's statement, strictly. Otherwise, we face mere variations of something like <include library>...<eval(5^4^3^2)> with specious differences not elucidating the language facilities. Entries for the likes of Alore and bc amount to that but without the "include" because the necessary facilities are built-in to the language. Only some libraries amount to being a part of the language, as with C's stdio.h. I'm interested in the historical changes in a language as features are introduced or removed and generality is attained or implemented with limits - so no INTEGER*2000 for example, even though in principle this could be allowed, somewhat as in Algol68 - and was amused by the thought that the IBM1620 could perhaps have succeeded, and the IBM1403 also? These represent a possible development path in this matter that was not taken and anyone interested in language comparison would be interested in such decisions. As for what's more useful, someone seeking to solve such a problem "right now" via perusal of RC to select a language for immediate use would want to know which languages had built-in facilities or not. And reading the task description, would expect to see just that, and if for example bc was available, success would be moments away. But with libraries required there would be a delay, unless the library was overwhelmingly available so as to seem a part of the language and even more delay for supplied routines. Thus I am speaking against the inclusion of libraries or specially-written routines, as per the task specification for this specific task.

:::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)

 

== 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 &lt;math&gt; 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)