ow Integers Should Work

[bcs]

On 12/06/2011 11:50 PM, Don wrote:
>
> He's talking about system languages. A system language has to have a
> close relationship to the architecture.
>
> By contrast, if you don't care about performance, it's easy -- just use
> BigInts for everything. Problem solved.
>
> Looks like I have to put it more bluntly: I don't think he knows what
> he's talking about. (On this particular topic).

I know exactly what you have been saying I just think you are wrong, not 
because I don't think you knows what you are talking about but because I 
think you are evaluating his conclusion based on a different criteria 
than he is.

More specifically, I think we are dealing with a differing order of 
priories for system languages. Mine would put safety (i.e. NO undefined 
behaviour) over performance. I think he is going the same way. 
Personally, if I could only have one, I think I'd (first) go with 
defining overflow semantics rather than trapping but I'm not sure which 
is more useful in a systems context.

Can we at least agree that if you are only going to have one signed 
integer semantic, that undefined overflow is the worst possible choice?