mjs at apple.com
Wed Sep 17 17:05:14 PDT 2008
On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
>>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> To the extent that I understand Doug's proposal, it essentially
>>>> is an
>>>> opt-in that would remove a feature (binary64 floating points); and
>>>> therefore would likely be about as successful as an opt-in that
>>>> removed another feature that Doug dislikes, such as "with". Am I
>>>> missing something?
>>> It would replace a feature that many consider to be broken with a
>>> feature that
>>> we hope will work better.
>> While decimal floating point may be better than binary floating
>> point for some applications, such as currency calculations, it
>> would be unsuitable for other applications such as graphics. Doing
>> popular application. For example, see Processing.JS, Algorithmic
>> Ink, Mozilla's recent image filtering demo, and any of a number of
>> charting and graphic applications.
>> Using decimal floating point is unacceptable for these kinds of
>> applications - the performance would not be acceptable. So we
>> should not go down a path based on the assumption that binary
>> floating point can be removed.
> If we agree that binary64 isn't a "bug" that needs to be removed,
> wouldn't the simplest solution that could possibly work be separate
> number and decimal data types that can be freely convertible between
> each other, and the absolutely most a "use decimal" could possibly
> mean is that the interpretation of numeric literals is as decimal
> floating point as opposed to binary floating point?
That approach sounds much better to me than Doug's proposal.
>> I agree with you and Brendan that these issues are better resolved
>> in Harmony.
> At the minimum, I would hope that we should be able to agree on what
> the issues are. If they can't be worked in time, so be it.
> Doug has put forward the proposal that Harmony seek to "wholly
> replace the binary representation with the decimal representation".
> Is that the consensus of the group?
I certainly do not agree with his proposal. Other embers of the group
may speak for themselves, but it was not my understanding previously
that anyone wanted to go down such a road.
More information about the Es-discuss