From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Norman H. Cohen" Subject: Re: Portability of Arithmetic (was: Java vs Ada 95) Date: 1996/10/18 Message-ID: <32679C86.2FB8@watson.ibm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 190324010 references: <325D7F9B.2A8B@gte.net> <1996Oct15.174526.1@eisner> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Date: 1996-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > Harrumph! ... ... > Now it is true that Java guarantees the presence of 64-bit signed > binary arithmetic, and Ada does not. However, in my experience, by > far the most common need for such high precision arithmetic is > in connection with fiscal applications, and here Ada's Decimal > type is much more attractive than the use of manually scaled int > values. Harrumph! What about 64-bit UNsigned binary arithmetic? 32-bit arithmetic does not suffice for manipulating offsets into files larger than 4GB, or for calculating the amount of space available on some disks, or for timestamps accurate to the nearest millisecond and spanning a range of 16 months or more. -- Norman H. Cohen mailto:ncohen@watson.ibm.com http://www.research.ibm.com/people/n/ncohen