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,f3f9104dada53163 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: An interesting quote on Java and C++ Date: 1997/09/18 Message-ID: <34218E68.63D5@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 273750231 References: <5ujjvq$t4s@drn.zippo.com> <34160feb.36797713@news.mindspring.com> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > > How about integers? The Java standard nails down integers pretty > precisely (exactly 8, 16, 32, and 64-bit arithmetic, with wraparound on > overflow). Does anybody know whether Java implementations obey this? > Are there any Java implementations on machines where the word size would > make this inconvenient? I don't know whether there are any Java implimentations for them, but the definitions of integers in Java would definitely be awkard for the old Burroughs (now Unisys), GE/Honeywell (now BULL) and Univac (now Unisys); not only are the word sizes of 36 and 48 bits not powers of 2, but some of those machines use ones-complement arithmetic (end-around carry.) I assume that the old CDC machines are not an issue; otherwise they would have the same problems. Ada, of course, takes a much less machine-dependent definition of the world; you define the precision of your variables in terms of the application, not in terms of the word size of your computer or virtual machine. > - Bob -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org