3 ms·

I always read these with my arms crossed like "pffffff yeah obviously"

H8crilA 5y ago
There's no limit for array size in C++, or for any core structure. Other than the size types, which naturally scale up as we get newer architectures (obviously 2^64 for most people at the moment).
- kibwen 5y ago
  The C++ standard may not impose a limit, but any given C++ implementation will. Likewise, the limit in the OP here isn't part of the Javascript standard, just a Chrome implementation detail.
  - lionkor 5y ago
    that would be..? std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max()?
    - kibwen 5y ago
      Yes, size_t should be the limiting factor.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  If we're saying "Pfffff" at things, let's take a moment to appreciate that by the magic of not actually storing them Rust gets to store all of nothing in no space. Rust's arrays of something can only have up to std::isize::MAX elements. But by choosing to store nothing instead of something, we can go larger to std::usize::MAX with e.g. [(); std::usize::MAX] and that'll actually work, at runtime, even on a modest computer since you don't need space for std::usize::MAX of anything. If usize::MAX of a zero size type isn't enough for you, might I interest you in an Iterator that contains not merely usize::MAX but infinity of any Default type of your choosing? And if you don't need that many, you can always just take() fewer of them no charge.
- stkdump 5y ago
  I think C++ pointers being 64 bit will stick with us forever, unless some fundamental paradigm shift happens in what C++ is used for. I also think the size of short, int, long long, float and double will not change anymore, ever. The reasons we had for changes in the past will not happen anymore from now on, and the cost of changes only increases over time. We might see the sizes (and IEEE-754 floats) be officially standardized at some point, like twos complement is standardized now.
  - H8crilA 5y ago
    I mean, yes, size_t will stay at 64bits for at least a while, 2^64 bytes is 16 exabytes. Once this is insufficient then it will be slowly switched to 128bits. Some systems already use 128 bits for storage-related arithmetics.
antonvs 5y ago
Right there with you

There's no limit for array size in C++, or for any core structure. Other than the size types, which naturally scale up as we get newer architectures (obviously 2^64 for most people at the moment).

kibwen 5y ago
The C++ standard may not impose a limit, but any given C++ implementation will. Likewise, the limit in the OP here isn't part of the Javascript standard, just a Chrome implementation detail.
- lionkor 5y ago
  that would be..? std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max()?
  - kibwen 5y ago
    Yes, size_t should be the limiting factor.
tialaramex 5y ago
If we're saying "Pfffff" at things, let's take a moment to appreciate that by the magic of not actually storing them Rust gets to store all of nothing in no space. Rust's arrays of something can only have up to std::isize::MAX elements. But by choosing to store nothing instead of something, we can go larger to std::usize::MAX with e.g. [(); std::usize::MAX] and that'll actually work, at runtime, even on a modest computer since you don't need space for std::usize::MAX of anything. If usize::MAX of a zero size type isn't enough for you, might I interest you in an Iterator that contains not merely usize::MAX but infinity of any Default type of your choosing? And if you don't need that many, you can always just take() fewer of them no charge.
stkdump 5y ago
I think C++ pointers being 64 bit will stick with us forever, unless some fundamental paradigm shift happens in what C++ is used for. I also think the size of short, int, long long, float and double will not change anymore, ever. The reasons we had for changes in the past will not happen anymore from now on, and the cost of changes only increases over time. We might see the sizes (and IEEE-754 floats) be officially standardized at some point, like twos complement is standardized now.
- H8crilA 5y ago
  I mean, yes, size_t will stay at 64bits for at least a while, 2^64 bytes is 16 exabytes. Once this is insufficient then it will be slowly switched to 128bits. Some systems already use 128 bits for storage-related arithmetics.

antonvs 5y ago

Right there with you