Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: widening multiplication Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 07:42:08 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 37 Message-ID: <86y2m5bf0f.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <1507c5b9-7531-4c59-937a-299c799b9e04n@googlegroups.com> <87364ia79o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <8f076f92-55bc-4c19-b504-7e80c8878cb2n@googlegroups.com> <1Ut%G.293556$RF4.155976@fx43.iad> <6bd1b70e-e118-4570-91dd-01cbceb8fb15n@googlegroups.com> <87k0xs6zy7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87zh6n5yzj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <04119787-016c-4db7-ad38-0542c2d510f6n@googlegroups.com> <4a7454b6-784a-4e67-acf9-f3c37163c93en@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a0e402bf6f289e2e0586e1d075c61f0f"; logging-data="14469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kVzQGl9U165eznXoVK3HGEdxMI7H4RYo=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:B+6rVR6mcfT8UhunUfxalVHLV+Q= sha1:DS0vIgm5JJ5Bd+f2V9V5kK5rKfE= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:153963 Richard Damon writes: > On 8/22/20 1:04 PM, David Brown wrote: > >> On 22/08/2020 17:59, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, 22 August 2020 at 15:17:01 UTC+1, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>>> I would say your 'most' is a bit inaccurate or misleading, unless you >>>> really do mean that most languages do worst. >>>> >>>> The ones that do 'better' than C in this would be: >>>> >>>> 1) Languages with dynamic typing, where integer math automatically >>>> converts to higher/arbitrary precision types. These get around the >>>> problem by defining it away, there is no type like int32_t >>> >>> So that's pretty much every high level language, scripting language, >>> mathematical language. >> >> > Comparison_of_programming_languages_(basic_instructions)#Integers> >> >> Of course that is not a complete list of languages by any means. But it >> gives a rough idea. And while there is clearly a correlation between >> higher level languages having support for "big numbers", it is not >> remotely as clear-cut as you seem to think. Many of the "high-level" >> and "scripting" languages there have big numbers as a standard library >> type in addition to fixed-size integer types that are used more generally. > > Looking at that list, only Python 3. Erlang, Mathmatica, and Wolfram > meet that requirement. [...] You left out Smalltalk, which had automatic conversion to arbitrary precision ten years or so before the others. (The predecessor to Mathematica, SMP, may have been only a few years after Smalltalk.)