Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Maltimore (maltimore@social.tchncs.de)'s status on Friday, 17-Nov-2023 18:09:01 JST Maltimore

   This morning, out of nowhere, I decided enough is enough. Python existed for over 30 years, so the following issue just shouldn't exist anymore:

   >>> 0.1 + 0.2 == 0.3
   False

   So I after people tried to convince me of julia for many years because it supposedly handles numbers much better, I finally tried it.

   julia> 0.1 + 0.2 == 0.3
   false

   Okay then.

   #Python #Julia

   • Embed this notice
     Tom Ritchford (tomswirly@toot.community)'s status on Friday, 17-Nov-2023 18:09:00 JST Tom Ritchford

     in reply to

     @maltimore

     "just shouldn't exist anymore"?!

     But you can easily prove there is no way to prevent this problem in general, which is why all programming languages have this!

     I strongly recommend reading some books on numerical analysis. The second volume of Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming has a chapter called "Arithmetic" that is still one of the best sources.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Maltimore (maltimore@social.tchncs.de)'s status on Friday, 17-Nov-2023 18:09:03 JST Maltimore

     in reply to

     • vascorsd

     @vascorsd
     learn julia, they said. it handles numbers better, they said.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     vascorsd (vascorsd@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 17-Nov-2023 18:09:05 JST vascorsd

     in reply to

     @maltimore the stupidity of modern languages of continuing to insist in making numbers be weird instead of actually working as numbers is bonkers, ridiculous and annoys me to no end. Computers and languages should help people do stuff and numbers working properly should be a basic thing that should work. The day I create my language numbers will be numbers and not this.

   • Embed this notice
     clacke (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Friday, 17-Nov-2023 18:09:05 JST clacke

     in reply to

     • A* Ulven :verified_blobcat:

     @AlgorithmWolf You are late to the party.

     @maltimore

   • Embed this notice
     A* Ulven :verified_blobcat: (algorithmwolf@ioc.exchange)'s status on Friday, 17-Nov-2023 18:09:07 JST A* Ulven :verified_blobcat:

     in reply to

     @maltimore inb4 your replies are something along the line of "nooo, that is normal because of IEEE something something, you are using the wrong data type, you are just stupid"

     Just wait lol.

   • Embed this notice
     Jens N (aserraric@social.tchncs.de)'s status on Saturday, 18-Nov-2023 12:34:07 JST Jens N

     in reply to

     • vascorsd

     @vascorsd @maltimore
     The problem (particularly in dynamically typed languages like Python) is that any change to type inference would be a major breaking change.
     You could create YAL (Yet Another Language) that treats non-integer number literals as decimals instead of floating point, but then you would have other problems to contend with. The ability of a compiler/interpreter to mind-read is limited.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Silmathoron ⁂ (silmathoron@floss.social)'s status on Saturday, 18-Nov-2023 12:34:09 JST Silmathoron ⁂

     in reply to

     @maltimore I see: it's less false in Julia, hence the lowercase "false", instead of the capitalized "False" in Python. Definitely going in the right direction!

     clacke likes this.