3 ms·
The type conversion assumptions here are real problematic. "64 bits ought to be enough for anybody"-style statements ignore integers as bitfields, large constan
by debatem1 4y ago
The type conversion assumptions here are real problematic. "64 bits ought to be enough for anybody"-style statements ignore integers as bitfields, large constants (eg Avogadro's number), any kind of math with large intermediate terms, all kinds of stuff.
Makes me very suspect about the rest of this project when they try to glide past all of these issues with nary a mention.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zamadatix 4y ago> There are many things we took for granted here, like how we determine the data types to begin with, or how we put the source code in a format that’s suitable for code generation. These, among other things, will be topics of future posts in this series. Stay tuned! I don't feel they are trying to glide past anything. It's the first post in the series about a product in 0.x state, it's gotta start somewhere other than perfection and they seem to know that.
- scaredginger 4y agohttps://docs.exaloop.io/codon/general/differences https://docs.exaloop.io/codon/general/differences Looks like you can use bigger integers and they're very explicit about it not being a drop-in replacement for Python