Talk:Factorial: Difference between revisions
(→The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly: Agreed.) |
(added my two bits to the discusion about range limits. -- ~~~~) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
Yes, for non-native speakers of any language, it would be nice to know how big the '''thingys''' are: ''int, short, long, long long'', etc. For experienced programmers, I imagine this is old hat, but to programmers who can barely spell '''C''', ... not so obvious. --- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
<lang rexx>/* ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ |
|||
│ ───── Some factorial lengths ───── │ |
|||
│ │ |
|||
│ 10 ! = 7 digits │ |
|||
│ 20 ! = 19 digits │ |
|||
│ 52 ! = 68 digits │ |
|||
│ 104 ! = 167 digits │ |
|||
│ 208 ! = 394 digits │ |
|||
│ 416 ! = 394 digits (8 deck shoe) │ |
|||
│ │ |
|||
│ 1k ! = 2,568 digits │ |
|||
│ 10k ! = 35,660 digits │ |
|||
│ 100k ! = 456,574 digits │ |
|||
│ │ |
|||
│ 1m ! = 5,565,709 digits │ |
|||
│ 10m ! = 65,657,060 digits │ |
|||
│ 100m ! = 756,570,556 digits │ |
|||
│ │ |
|||
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ */</lang> |
|||
== The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly == |
== The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly == |
||
Revision as of 21:35, 30 May 2012
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --Short Circuit 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, for non-native speakers of any language, it would be nice to know how big the thingys are: int, short, long, long long, etc. For experienced programmers, I imagine this is old hat, but to programmers who can barely spell C, ... not so obvious. --- Gerard Schildberger 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
<lang rexx>/* ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ───── Some factorial lengths ───── │ │ │ │ 10 ! = 7 digits │ │ 20 ! = 19 digits │ │ 52 ! = 68 digits │ │ 104 ! = 167 digits │ │ 208 ! = 394 digits │ │ 416 ! = 394 digits (8 deck shoe) │ │ │ │ 1k ! = 2,568 digits │ │ 10k ! = 35,660 digits │ │ 100k ! = 456,574 digits │ │ │ │ 1m ! = 5,565,709 digits │ │ 10m ! = 65,657,060 digits │ │ 100m ! = 756,570,556 digits │ │ │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ */</lang>
The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly
I think it is better to use generic x86, and at most to specify a "works with", if needed, rather than let proliferate 80286, 80386, 80486, ... —ShinTakezou 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree to a point; there's a definite progression and tendency toward backwards-compatibility. However, there are incompatible revisions. It's possible that different modes (real, protected, long and legacy) warrant some degree of recognition as their own languages--these modes represent forward and reverse compatibility constraints. --Michael Mol 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)