Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!pioneer!eugene
From: eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: More than 32 bits needed where?
Message-ID: <4607@ames.arpa>
Date: 9 Feb 88 16:57:51 GMT
References: <235@unicom.UUCP> <28200089@ccvaxa> <3104@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <617@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM> <973@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ames.arpa
Reply-To: eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 24

In article <973@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> lee@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lee Carver) writes:
> Article summarizing word size and equating the maxint to maximum
> transactable dollars. (i.e. 4 G)

A similar argument can be made about world population.  But I think
this is week.

It occurs to me (since this is the 4th time I've seen this discussion) that
there is a wildcard in this line of logic which we over look.  We should
not equate word size with maximum machine precision, especially in this
world where 68Ks and 80386s predominate.  Before we see the
proliferation of 64 bit micros, I think we will see the proliferation of
extended precision math software packages (floating point as well as integer).
I think this will happen because of Ada and the way Ada handles
machine precision (scary thought to me actually).  I have to think about
the consequences of this more (I didn't think of this 3 times hence).
The DOD may control software more than I thought they would.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene