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,f3f9104dada53163
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: An interesting quote on Java and C++
Date: 1997/09/20
Message-ID: <dewar.874759791@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 274106815
References: <5ujjvq$t4s@drn.zippo.com> <EG9rCz.5pH@world.std.com>
 <34160feb.36797713@news.mindspring.com> <dewar.873989964@merv>
 <EGEq96.2H6@world.std.com> <34218E68.63D5@gsg.eds.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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?

Note that in Ada, wrap around (modular) types *do* have completely portable
semantics, although in practice people will choose types that match thei
hardware, and efficiency may not be completely portable (the same effect
you see in Java, where clearly 8,16,32,64 are picked not because the world
is full of situations where the domain model requires such types, but because
that's what Sun could implement efficiently.