Oh I see. You don't have a specific problem to solve. You are trying to test the limits of technology. In that case, your task will never be complete because your objective is to find problems to solve that you cannot currently solve. If you had 64 bits then you would soon be asking for 128 bits, and so on.
I share your frustration on the lack of 64-bit J for OSX, I am using large files which require 64 bit address space. I am not sure why it is a problem to make it, but I don't know much about compilers etc... it probably involves a lot of extra work and the 64 bit OSX demand is probably pretty low (2 of us?!). Besides, I am happy running it on Ubuntu so don't think I would use it even if it was released ... so that makes just one of you :-). Why not buy a 64 bit Windows machine and have done with it? 2009/11/3 DIETER ENSSLEN <[email protected]> > dear Matthew, > > the idea is to see what a 64 bit machine can do running 64 bit programs, > (and the next step will be 128 bit machine running 128 bit programs one > presumes). Then dual quads, lots and lots of fast GB RAM: progress. > > good benchmarks would be the Euler-Mascheroni series, or the old series of > 1/x^1.001, and such, the awfully slow converging things, a test of language, > programmer, and machine. > > aside from that, people set records for number of digits, and they always > have since before Euler and Mascheroni's time, and they always will. > > thanks > > dick > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
