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: 103376,fae85d3a03b5f78c,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Jeff Carter <carter@innocon.com>
Subject: Fixed-point
Date: 1997/03/28
Message-ID: <333C08A7.446B9B3D@innocon.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 229058583
Organization: DIGEX
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jack Crenshaw's "Programmer's Toolbox" column in *Embedded Systems
Programming* has been discussing implementing multiple precision
integers and fixed-point types in C++ for some time. I was wondering
when he'd address why you'd go to the effort, rather than use a language
with fixed-point type support. In the 1997 Apr issue, he does:

"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."

Has anyone encountered this phenomenon? In my experience, with modern
compilers, fixed-point operations are not too slow, especially when
using a binary delta. However, I don't have sufficient amunition to
refute this. Perhaps one (or several) of the more knowlegeable out there
would like to take this on.

The editor-in-chief, Lindsey Vereen, is lvereen@mfi.com. Their web site
is www.embedded.com.
-- 
Jeff Carter
Innovative Concepts, Inc.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be invoiced at US $500 per piece.