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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Alan Lovejoy Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <32EED6E1.1132@concentric.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212898238 references: <32E6797A.6E21@parcplace.com> <5cibnv$lm8@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Modulation mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John Woods wrote: > > donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: > > >Eric Clayberg writes: > > >:Actually, Smalltalk transparently switches to using "large" integers > >:that have no limits on size. In fact, it's actually fun to run large > >:factorials in Smalltalk to see how large an integer it will generate. > >:VisualSmalltalk will calculate the result of "1000 factorial" in a > >:second or two and display the results. BTW, the result of that > >:expression is: :-) > > >[some gi-normous number] > > >That's impressive. Might hang onto it in case it comes in handy one day. :) > > >Don. > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >Don Harrison donh@syd.csa.com.au > > I was showing off VW to a Pascally friend with these large integers. > BTW, the only way to get a scientific format for this is to convert it > into a string and count the digits --- about 2500. It takes my two > year old PC less than a second to calculate this, and slightly more > than a second to convert it into a string! > > Anyway, back to the showing off. I ran a low priority process finding > the factorial of a million, to show him how stable the system was. > Obviously nothing happened, and I forgot about the process. > > Weeks later, my system was getting pretty slow. I had a good look > at my image. It contained a two megabyte integer! But, apart from > the brain aching slowness, it was still crunching reliably away. And I'll bet you saved the image to disk, quit Smalltalk and even shutdown your computer at least once during that time, didn't you? And the process just kept running (resuming right were it left off each time the image was restarted), n'est-ce pas? -- Alan L. Lovejoy |==============================================| Smalltalk Consultant | Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs! | alovejoy@concentric.net |==============================================|