Re: Fixed-point

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <E7tuts.9D7@world.std.com>, bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes:
> In article <333C08A7.446B9B3D@innocon.com>,
> Jeff Carter  <carter@innocon.com> wrote:
>>"The designers of Ada ... tried to get too fancy. Instead of restricting
>>the type to words commensurate with the natural word length of the
>>computer, they gave us a more general definition that allows for words
>>of any bit length and any resolution. ... [T]he end result was the same:
>>fixed-point operations are so slow in Ada that few people bother to use
>>the type, and many Ada shops prohibit their use as a matter programming
>>style."
> 
> Sounds like nonsense, to me.  Implementations of Ada's fixed-point types
> *do* use "natural word length" to store data, and do operations.  And
> the language definition encourages that.  So what's the problem?

The problem is that while folks on this newsgroup so far unanimously
disagree with the published remarks, for the publication readership
the slam against Ada goes unchallenged. Someone who has experience
with fixed-point types should write a polite rebuttal and send it to
the publication.

Generally I see this soft of "call for rebuttal" on the Team Ada
mailing list, but I suppose finding such uniform opinion on c.l.a
is a good "trial by fire" for the concept of a rebuttal.

Larry Kilgallen