Mark Wooding wrote:
Would the world be a better place if we had a name for 2 pi rather than
pi itself?
I don't think so. The women working in the factory in India
that makes most of the worlds 2s would be out of a job.
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au writes:
Well, what is the definition of pi? Is it:
the ratio of the circumference of a circle to twice its radius;
the ratio of the area of a circle to the square of its radius;
4*arctan(1);
the complex logarithm of -1 divided by the
On 10 Oct, 10:44, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/02/10 20:04, NickKeighleywrote:
In a statically typed language, the of-the-wrong-type is something
which
can, by definition, be caught at compile time.
Any time something is true by definition that is an indication that
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:31:59PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
under Euclidean
geometry, there was a time when people didn't know whether or not the
ratio of circumference to radius was or wasn't a constant, and proving
that it is a constant is non-trivial.
I'm not sure that the construction you mentioned proves that
either,
Steven D'Aprano steve-remove-t...@cybersource.com.au writes:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:52:54 +0100, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
Given two circles with radii r1 and r2, circumferences C1 and C2, one is
obviously the scaled-up version of the other, therefore the ratio of
their circumferences is
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
In general any function
which raises its argument to more than one power ... doesn't make
much sense if its argument has units.
That's not true. Consider the distance travelled by a
falling object: y(t) = y0 + v0*t + 0.5*a*t**2. Here t has
dimensions of time, and it's
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
So the interesting thing is that some pseudo-units don't have
dimensions. They only have the scale.
I don't think the term pseudo-unit is particularly necessary.
They're just units in which the powers of all the possible
dimensions are zero. Calling them
RG wrote:
Even an interest
rate of 0.1 radians makes sense if for some unfathomable reason you want
to visualize your interest payment as the relative length of a line
segment and an arc.
It could even be quite reasonable if you're presenting it
as a segment of a pie graph.
For what it's
Dann Corbit wrote:
But in a very real sense it is a measure of rotation. We could call it
a special measure, sort of like the way that e is a special base
compared to all others.
That's not the only thing that radians are useful for, though.
Consider a weight bobbing up and down on a
In article 8hl3grfh2...@mid.individual.net,
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
RG wrote:
Even an interest
rate of 0.1 radians makes sense if for some unfathomable reason you want
to visualize your interest payment as the relative length of a line
segment and an arc.
In article 8hl2ucfdv...@mid.individual.net,
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
In general any function
which raises its argument to more than one power ... doesn't make
much sense if its argument has units.
That's not true. Consider the distance
On 2010-10-13 02:00:46 +0100, BartC said:
But what exactly *is* this number? Is it 0.25, 1.57 or 90?
Its pi/2, the same way 90% is 9/10.
I can also write 12 inches, 1 foot, 1/3 yards, 1/5280 miles, 304.8 mm
and so on. They are all the same number, roughly 1/13100 of the
polar
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:31 AM, RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
snip
This reminds me of back when I was a kid and my dad was trying to teach
me basic physics. He kept saying that the acceleration of gravity was
9.8 meters per second squared and I just couldn't wrap my brain around
what it
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
+---
| This reminds me of back when I was a kid and my dad was trying to teach
| me basic physics. He kept saying that the acceleration of gravity was
| 9.8 meters per second squared and I just couldn't wrap my brain around
| what it meant to square
In article z9ednf_oe76e9cjrnz2dnuvz_vedn...@speakeasy.net,
r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
+---
| This reminds me of back when I was a kid and my dad was trying to teach
| me basic physics. He kept saying that the acceleration of gravity was
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
+---
| r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| Write it our longhand and it's easier to grok:
| 9.8 m/s^2 == 9.8 m/(s*s) == 9.8 m/(s*s) ==
| (9.8 meters per second) per second.
| \ /
|\__ speed added __/ per
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
news:rnospamon-ee76e8.18291912102...@news.albasani.net...
In article i930ek$uv...@news.eternal-september.org,
BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
Likewise, all of the following are the same number written in
On 2010-10-13 13:21:29 +0100, BartC said:
My money would have been on 0.25, based on using 1.0 for a 360°
circular angle. It seems far more attractive than using the
arbitrary-looking 6.28...
It may look arbitrary, but it isn't: it's about as non-arbitrary as it
is possible to be.
--
Hmmm, my ISP's news software really doesn't like it when I cross-post to
more than three newsgroups. So, trying again without comp.lang.c.
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:00:46 +0100, BartC wrote:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
In
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is taught in primary
schools, yet it's actually a very difficult formula to prove!
What's to prove? That's the definition of pi.
Incorrect -- it's not necessarily so that the ratio of the
Tim Bradshaw t...@tfeb.org writes:
On 2010-10-13 13:21:29 +0100, BartC said:
My money would have been on 0.25, based on using 1.0 for a 360°
circular angle. It seems far more attractive than using the
arbitrary-looking 6.28...
It may look arbitrary, but it isn't: it's about as
On 2010-10-13 14:20:30 +0100, Steven D'Aprano said:
ncorrect -- it's not necessarily so that the ratio of the circumference
to the radius of a circle is always the same number. It could have turned
out that different circles had different ratios.
But pi is much more basic than that, I think.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is taught in primary
schools, yet it's actually a very difficult formula to prove!
What's to prove? That's the definition of pi.
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:05:27 -0500, r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
Why should it?!? If you look way under the covers, I suspect that even
the c^2 in E = mc^2 is a collected term in the above sense [that is,
if I recall my classes in introductory special relativity correctly].
In special
RG rnospa...@flownet.com writes:
In article 8hl2ucfdv...@mid.individual.net,
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
In general any function
which raises its argument to more than one power ... doesn't make
much sense if its argument has units.
That's
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
Hmmm, my ISP's news software really doesn't like it when I cross-post to
more than three newsgroups. So, trying again without comp.lang.c.
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:00:46 +0100, BartC wrote:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:07:07 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
On 2010-10-13 14:20:30 +0100, Steven D'Aprano said:
ncorrect -- it's not necessarily so that the ratio of the circumference
to the radius of a circle is always the same number. It could have
turned out that different circles had
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is taught in primary
schools, yet it's actually a very difficult formula to
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:28:42 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
But what exactly *is* this number? Is it 0.25, 1.57 or 90?
That's the wrong question. It's like asking, what exactly is the
number twenty-one -- is it one and twenty, or 21, or 0x15, or 0o25,
or 21.0, or 20.999... recurring, or
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
Thomas A. Russ t...@sevak.isi.edu wrote in message
news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
torb...@diku.dk (Torben ZÆgidius Mogensen) writes:
Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is taught in
RG wrote:
I just couldn't wrap my brain around
what it meant to square a second.
That's nothing. Magnetic permeability is measured in
newtons per square amp...
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:28:42 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
But what exactly *is* this number? Is it 0.25, 1.57 or 90?
That's the wrong question. It's like asking, what exactly is the
number twenty-one -- is it one and
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:52:54 +0100, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:31 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
0.2141693770623265
Perhaps this will help illustrate what I'm talking about... the
mathematician Mitchell Feigenbaum discovered in 1975 that, for a large
class of chaotic systems, the ratio of each bifurcation
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
And yet nobody can recite this equally interesting ratio to thousands
of digits:
0.2141693770623265...
That is 1/F1 where F1 is the first Feigenbaum constant a/k/a delta.
The mathworld article is pretty good:
On Oct 12, 8:45 am, torb...@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) wrote:
Vic Kelson vic.kel...@gmail.com writes:
That said, I'm having a hard time thinking of a transcendental
function that doesn't take a dimensionless argument, e.g. what on
earth would be the units of ln(4.0 ft)?
On 2010-10-12 11:16:09 +0100, Ben said:
Angles aren't true units, as they are ratios of two lengths. They
are more of a pseudo unit.
That's right, in fact angles are pure numbers. In general any function
which raises its argument to more than one power (for instance anything
with a
torb...@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) writes:
Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed if you use the wrong
unit.
But radians are dimensionless.
The definition of a radian is length/length (or m/m) which
Thomas A. Russ t...@sevak.isi.edu wrote in message
news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
torb...@diku.dk (Torben ZÆgidius Mogensen) writes:
Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed if you use the wrong
unit.
On 2010-10-12 20:46:26 +0100, BartC said:
You can't do all that if angles are just numbers.
I think that the discussion of percentages is relevant here: angles
//are// just numbers, but you're choosing a particular way of
displaying them (or reading them). 100% //is// 1, and 360° //is// 2π.
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
Thomas A. Russ t...@sevak.isi.edu wrote in message
news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
torb...@diku.dk (Torben ZÆgidius Mogensen) writes:
Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
or (less often) degrees, with conversion
Thomas A. Russ wrote:
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
Thomas A. Russ t...@sevak.isi.edu wrote in message
news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
torb...@diku.dk (Torben Z??gidius Mogensen) writes:
Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
or (less often) degrees,
In article i92dvd$ad...@news.eternal-september.org,
BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
Thomas A. Russ t...@sevak.isi.edu wrote in message
news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
torb...@diku.dk (Torben ZÆgidius Mogensen) writes:
Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
In article i92dvd$ad...@news.eternal-september.org,
BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
Thomas A. Russ t...@sevak.isi.edu wrote in message
But radians are dimensionless.
But they are still units
In article i930ek$uv...@news.eternal-september.org,
BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
In article i92dvd$ad...@news.eternal-september.org,
BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
Thomas A. Russ
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
[...]
Likewise, all of the following are the same number written in different
notations:
pi/2
pi/2 radians
90 degrees
100 gradians
1/4 circle
0.25 circle
In article ln8w22euvp@nuthaus.mib.org,
Keith Thompson ks...@mib.org wrote:
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
[...]
Likewise, all of the following are the same number written in different
On 13/10/2010 02:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
BartCb...@freeuk.com writes:
RGrnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
[...]
Likewise, all of the following are the same number written in different
notations:
pi/2
pi/2 radians
90 degrees
In article i930ek$uv...@news.eternal-september.org, b...@freeuk.com
says...
RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
In article i92dvd$ad...@news.eternal-september.org,
BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
Thomas A. Russ
Tim Bradshaw t...@tfeb.org writes:
On 2010-10-12 20:46:26 +0100, BartC said:
You can't do all that if angles are just numbers.
I think that the discussion of percentages is relevant here: angles
//are// just numbers, but you're choosing a particular way of
displaying them (or reading
Keith Thompson ks...@mib.org wrote:
The radian is defined as a ratio of lengths. That ratio
is the same regardless of the size of the circle. The
choice of 1/(2*pi) of the circumference isn't arbitrary
at all; there are sound mathematical reasons for it.
Yes, but what is pi then?
In article 87mxqin49o@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com,
p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
There's a notion of
angle that is different from the notion of interest rate.
Only because of how they are conventionally used. There's no difference
between sin(0.1) and sin(10%).
In article
f15c3684-97b3-4605-a6d0-eb6b8aaf2...@a7g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Peter Nilsson ai...@acay.com.au wrote:
Keith Thompson ks...@mib.org wrote:
The radian is defined as a ratio of lengths. That ratio
is the same regardless of the size of the circle. The
choice of 1/(2*pi) of the
On Sep 28, 10:55 am, Tim Bradshaw t...@tfeb.org wrote:
There's a large existing body of knowledge on dimensional analysis
(it's a very important tool for physics, for instance), and obviously
the answer is to do whatever it does. Raising to any power is fine, I
think (but transcendental
On 10/01/10 00:24, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
If I had to choose between blow up or invalid answer I would pick
invalid answer.
there are some application domains where neither option would be
viewed as a satisfactory error handling strategy. Fly-by-wire, petro-
chemicals, nuclear power
On 10/02/10 20:04, Nick Keighley wrote:
In a statically typed language, the of-the-wrong-type is something which
can, by definition, be caught at compile time.
Any time something is true by definition that is an indication that
it's not a particularly useful fact.
I'm not sure I
On 10/05/10 14:36, salil wrote:
So, the programmer who
specifically mentions Int in the signature of the function, is
basically overriding this default behavior for specific reasons
relevant to the application, for example, for performance. I think
Haskell's way is the right.
I agree that
On 10/01/10 23:56, BartC wrote:
Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote in message
news:87zkuyjawh@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote in message
When Intel will realize that 99% of its users are
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:38:11 +1100, Lie Ryan wrote:
Virtual Machine in Hardware... isn't that a contradiction?
Nope. Several mainframes did that.
Two that I knew well were both British - the ICL 1900 and 2900. The
Burroughs x700 series also used hardware virtualisation. Both Burroughs
and
On 2:59 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 10/01/10 23:56, BartC wrote:
Pascal J. Bourguignonp...@informatimago.com wrote in message
news:87zkuyjawh@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
BartCb...@freeuk.com writes:
Pascal J. Bourguignonp...@informatimago.com wrote in message
When Intel will realize
Martin Gregorie mar...@address-in-sig.invalid wrote:
+---
| Lie Ryan wrote:
| Virtual Machine in Hardware... isn't that a contradiction?
|
| Nope. Several mainframes did that.
|
| Two that I knew well were both British - the ICL 1900 and 2900.
| The Burroughs x700 series also used
On Sep 29, 9:01 pm, RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
That the problem is elsewhere in the program ought to be small
comfort. But very well, try this instead:
[...@mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
#include stdio.h
int maximum(int a, int b) { return a b ? a : b; }
int main() {
long x = 8589934592;
In article
1a172248-8aab-42f0-a8a2-3f00168f9...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com,
Keith H Duggar dug...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:01 pm, RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
That the problem is elsewhere in the program ought to be small
comfort. But very well, try this instead:
Keith H Duggar dug...@alum.mit.edu writes:
On Sep 29, 9:01 pm, RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
That the problem is elsewhere in the program ought to be small
comfort. But very well, try this instead:
[...@mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
#include stdio.h
int maximum(int a, int b) { return a b ? a :
On 05/10/2010 05:36, salil wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:38 pm, Lie Ryanlie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
The /most/ correct version of maximum() function is probably one written
in Haskell as:
maximum :: Integer - Integer - Integer
maximum a b = if a b then a else b
Integer in Haskell has infinite
RG rnospa...@flownet.com writes:
There are only two possibilities: either you have a finite-state
machine, or you have a Turning machine. (Well, OK, you could have a
pushdown automaton, but there are no programming languages that model a
PDA. Well, OK, there's Forth, but AFAIK there are
On Sep 30, 1:38 pm, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
The /most/ correct version of maximum() function is probably one written
in Haskell as:
maximum :: Integer - Integer - Integer
maximum a b = if a b then a else b
Integer in Haskell has infinite precision (like python's int, only
An interesting archive article on the topic of correctness, and the
layers thereof:
Program verification: the very idea;
Communications of the ACM
Volume 31 , Issue 9 (September 1988)
Pages: 1048 - 1063
Year of Publication: 1988
ISSN:0001-0782
The notion of program
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:56:24 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
Actually, it's hard to find a language that has no compiler generating
faster code than C...
Perl. Python. Ruby. Applescript. Hypertalk. Tcl. RPL. Frink. Inform 7.
ActionScript. Dylan. Emerald. And hundreds more serious
On 1 Oct, 11:02, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net writes:
On 2010-09-30, Ian Collins ian-n...@hotmail.com wrote:
Which is why agile practices such as TDD have an edge. If it compiles
*and* passes all its tests, it must be right.
So
On 1 Oct, 19:33, RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
In article slrniabt2j.1561.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net,
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net wrote:
On 2010-10-01, RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
snip
Those goal posts are sorta red shifted at this point.
[...]
Red shifted?
Moving away
in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
I would agree that the third sentence is arguably wrong, simply
because there's
On Sep 30, 10:37 pm, RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
In article 87tyl63cag@mail.geddis.org,
Don Geddis d...@geddis.org wrote:
Keith Thompson ks...@mib.org wrote on Thu, 30 Sep 2010:
RG rnospa...@flownet.com writes:
You're missing a lot of context. I'm not trying to criticize
On 9/30/2010 9:06 AM, Seebs wrote:
At $dayjob, they give us months between feature complete and shipping,
Lucky you
-Antony
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gene gene.ress...@gmail.com writes:
The FA or TM dichotomy is more painful to contemplate than you say.
Making appropriate simplifications for input, any modern computer is a
FA with 2^(a few trillion) states. Consequently, the gestalt of
computer science seems to be to take it on faith that
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:27:03 +, Seebs wrote:
On 2010-09-30, Ian Collins ian-n...@hotmail.com wrote:
Which is why agile practices such as TDD have an edge. If it compiles
*and* passes all its tests, it must be right.
So far as I know, that actually just means that the test suite is
On 27 Sep, 18:46, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Fact is: almost all user data from the external words comes into
programs as strings. No typesystem or compiler handles this fact all
that graceful...
snobol?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net writes:
On 2010-10-01, Don Geddis d...@geddis.org wrote:
in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile
rustom rustompm...@gmail.com writes:
Some points that seem to be missed (or Ive missed them?)
1. A dichotomy is being made between 'static' languages like C and
'dynamic' languages like python/lisp. This dichotomy was valid 30
years ago, not today. In Haskell for example
- static checking
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net writes:
On 2010-09-30, Ian Collins ian-n...@hotmail.com wrote:
Which is why agile practices such as TDD have an edge. If it compiles
*and* passes all its tests, it must be right.
So far as I know, that actually just means that the test suite is
insufficient.
Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote in message
news:87sk0qkzhz@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
rustom rustompm...@gmail.com writes:
Much more mainstream, C# is almost as 'managed' as dynamic languages
and has efficiency comparable to C.
Nothing extraordinary here. Common
namekuseijin wrote:
in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
In a dynamic typed language maximum(a, b) can be called with incorrect
datatypes. Even
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote in message
news:87sk0qkzhz@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
rustom rustompm...@gmail.com writes:
Much more mainstream, C# is almost as 'managed' as dynamic languages
and has efficiency comparable to C.
George Neuner wrote:
That's true. But it is a situation where the conversion to SI units
loses precision and therefore probably shouldn't be done.
snip/
I don't care to check it ... the fact that the SI unit involves 12
decimal places whereas the imperial unit involves 3 tells me the
Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote in message
news:87zkuyjawh@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote in message
When Intel will realize that 99% of its users are running VM
Which one?
Any
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
Nothing extraordinary here. Common Lisp is more efficient than C.
http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/research/verna.06.ecoop.pdf
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1144168
I don't know if you are intentionally trying to be deceitful or if you honestly
didn't
On 2010-10-01, TheFlyingDutchman zzbba...@aol.com wrote:
? ? ? ? in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
? ? ? ? work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
? ? ? ? tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
I would agree that the
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote:
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net writes:
The obvious simple maximum() in C will not raise an exception nor return
something which isn't an int in any program which is not on its face
invalid in the call. This is by definite
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote:
static dynamic
compiler detects wrong type fail at compile fails at run-time
(with exception
On 2010-10-01, RG rnospa...@flownet.com wrote:
Again, you can't have it both ways. Either a warning is a compiler
error according to the claim at issue (see below) or it is not. If it
is, then this is a false positive.
No, it isn't. It's a correctly identified type mismatch.
You keep
On 2010-10-01, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
Now can we (by which I mean *you*) stop cross-posting C talk to multiple
newsgroups that don't have anything to do with C?
Fair enough. The original thread does seem to have been crossposted in
an innovative way.
-s
On Oct 1, 7:17 pm, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com wrote:
a) no language is inherently more or less efficient than any other language.
The efficiency
aspect is only related to how those languages are implemented (i.e., the
investments made in
optimizing the compilers/interpreters)
I used
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote in message
news:87zkuyjawh@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
BartC b...@freeuk.com writes:
Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote in message
When Intel will realize that 99% of its users are
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net writes:
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote:
static dynamic
compiler detects wrong type fail at compile fails at run-time
(with
On 10/1/2010 7:17 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
Nothing extraordinary here. Common Lisp is more efficient than C.
http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/research/verna.06.ecoop.pdf
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1144168
I don't know if you are intentionally trying to
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote:
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net writes:
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote:
compiler passes wrong type wrong resultfails at run-time
(the programmer
On 10/1/2010 2:28 AM, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
I would agree that the third
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net writes:
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote:
Seebs usenet-nos...@seebs.net writes:
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com wrote:
compiler passes wrong type wrong resultfails at run-time
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
