Numeric Types[]
In attendance: Joe Darcy, Lubo, Brian, Per, and Robert.
Joe's comments --
- long to/from double is a major source of conversion headaches
- float is too low of precision to be useful
- single numeric type (double) is a nightmare: array indexed by 2.5; isPrime, etc
- smaller numeric types (short, byte, etc) are not "true" JVM types -- and have little use in the space
- the combination of double and int is a good choice in the space -- provides good interop with libraries and best performance
- alternative is double and infinite precision integer
- infinite precision integer could be achieved with an extra Object field and two xor tests for overflow
Group consensus --
- double and int used now
- decision on infinite precision integer can be deferred without architectural impact
- idea that infinite precision integer could be optionally supported (for small devices) was rejected on WORA grounds
Back to OpenJFX Compiler
Comments[]
I'd note that if you're accessing an array by index in jfx you're probably avoiding more set-oriented, declarative equivalents to something. It seems to me that it should be substantially easier for a runtime to optimize set notation and functions, versus procedural code.
var numbers = [ 1,4,7,4,3,7,9]; var odds = select n from numbers where n % 2 == 1;
Rossjudson 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)