Apple’s Bitcode Telegraphs Future CPU Plans

Re:Apple’s Bitcode Telegraphs Future CPU Plans by wz1000 on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @11:40PM (#9729962)

I think the way we do it is more natural. Numbers which have an infinite decimal expansion towards the right side of the decimal point are relatively much more common and useful compared to numbers which have an infinite decimal expansion towards the left.

For example, you can write out e as 2.7182...

However, if we were to flip this notation, ...2817.2, it isn't clear where to begin writing the number, if we read(and write) from left to write. With the regular representation, you write out the 'major' parts of the number first and then give out as many details as you want. You have the beginning of your string in mind. With a reversed system, you don't have the beginning but the end of the string in mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s Bitcode Telegraphs Future CPU Plans by scentoni on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @11:30AM (#9732488)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_number for an overview of the system of numbers that actually works this way, similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two's_complement with infinitely long registers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s Bitcode Telegraphs Future CPU Plans by Retra on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @02:05AM (#9730280)

All you are pointing out is that mixing little-endian and big-endian may cause trouble. You're not saying anything about which of the two is better.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think is 'more natural.' Computing in binary probably feels less natural to you, but nobody is going to stop making binary computers because of that.

[ Parent | on HN ]