this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
531 points (92.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

19623 readers
5 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)
[–] karlthemailman 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

No, I get that. I'm sure the programming language design people know what they are doing. I just can't grasp how a double (which has to use at least 1 bit to represent whether or not there is a fractional component) can possibly store more exact integer vales than an integer type of the same length (same number of bits).

It just seems to violate some law of information theory to my novice mind.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It doesn't store more values bit for bit, but it can store larger values.

[–] karlthemailman 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think that's possible. Representing more exact ints means representing larger ints and vice versa. I'm ignoring signed vs. unsigned here as in theory both the double and int/long can be signed or unsigned.

Edit: ok, I take this back. I guess you can represent larger values as long as you are ok that they will be estimates. Ie, double of N (for some very large N) will equal double of N + 1.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)