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
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Fixed-point
Date: 1997/03/29
Message-ID: <E7tuts.9D7@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 229328599
References: <333C08A7.446B9B3D@innocon.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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?

It's probably true that "few people bother to use the type".  But I
don't think that's due to efficiency concerns about "natural word
lengths".

>Has anyone encountered this phenomenon? In my experience, with modern
>compilers, fixed-point operations are not too slow, especially when
>using a binary delta.

I think you mean "binary small".  The small is binary, by default, even
if the delta isn't.

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

Heh?  Maybe I don't get the joke.  Your sig just sounds like you don't
want someone to answer your question.

- Bob