On 08.12.2011 05:46, bcs wrote:
On 12/06/2011 11:50 PM, Don wrote:
He's talking about system languages. A system language has to have a
close relationship to the architecture.
By contrast, if you don't care about performance, it's easy -- just use
BigInts for everything. Problem solved.
Looks like I have to put it more bluntly: I don't think he knows what
he's talking about. (On this particular topic).
I know exactly what you have been saying I just think you are wrong, not
because I don't think you knows what you are talking about but because I
think you are evaluating his conclusion based on a different criteria
than he is.
HE PROPOSES CHANGING INSTRUCTION SETS.
More specifically, I think we are dealing with a differing order of
priories for system languages. Mine would put safety (i.e. NO undefined
behaviour) over performance. I think he is going the same way.
Personally, if I could only have one, I think I'd (first) go with
defining overflow semantics rather than trapping but I'm not sure which
is more useful in a systems context.
Can we at least agree that if you are only going to have one signed
integer semantic, that undefined overflow is the worst possible choice?
Yes, but D doesn't have undefined overflow. So it's irrelevant.
