> Is the article claiming that such languages don't respect IEEE-754, or that IEEE-754 is shit? No, I don't think so. Where does that come from? The page doe

> Is the article claiming that such languages don't respect IEEE-754, or that IEEE-754 is shit? No, I don't think so. Where does that come from? The page doesn't mention FP standards at all. > If you want arbitrary precision, use an arbitrary precision datatype. That's the point. Half of them don't offer this feature. The other half make it very awkward, and not the default. We went through this exercise years ago with integers. These days, there are basically two types of languages. Languages which aim for usability first (like Python and Ruby), which use bigints by default, and languages which aim for performance first (like C++ and Swift), which use fixints by default. It's even somewhat similar with strings: the Rubys and Pythons of the world use Unicode everywhere, even though it's slower. No static limits. With real numbers, we're in a weird middle ground where every language still uses fixnums by default, even those which aim for usability over performance, and which don't have any other static limits encoded in the language. It's a strange inconsistency. I predict that in 10 years, we'll look back on this inconsistency the same way we now look back on early versions of today's languages where bigints needed special syntax.