Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!rutgers!att!ihlpb!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Many people's opinions on computer languages Message-ID: <8780@ihlpb.ATT.COM> Date: 22 Sep 88 23:47:22 GMT References: <3938@enea.se> <923@l.cc.purdue.edu> <382@quintus.UUCP><402@quintus.UUCP> <822@cernvax.UUCP> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 15 In article <822@cernvax.UUCP> hjm@cernvax.UUCP (Hubert Matthews) writes: >On a slightly less ethereal level, if Herman wants a 32 x 32 -> 64 multiply >instruction, then I suggest that the real problem is not that the language >doesn't let him specify this particular instruction, but that the language >doesn't let him specify his data to a sufficiently high degree. That brings about the question: What is a sufficiently high degree of precision? No matter what limit someone specifies for a given implementation X, there is always someone who wants greater precision. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!att!ihlpb!nevin1 (312) 979-4751 IH 4F-410 ' ) ) Anyone can survive being frozen in liquid nitrogen; / / _ , __o ____ it's surviving the *thawing* that counts :-). / (_