[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:10225] Re: limits on computation?

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2001-02-01 18:28:01 UTC
List: ruby-talk #10225
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Mike Wilson wrote:
> Just fooling around some, I ran this
> irb(main):001:0> 1020939**28329282
> obviously nothing good can come of this, but Ruby promptly grabbed some
> resources and began trying to compute this, finally ruby had 100% of the
> cpu and was still chugging.  Needless to say, I killed it soon after. 
> I then tried this:
> $ perl -e 'print 1020939**28329282, "\n"'
> Infinity

> So I'm curious why ruby seems to have no limit on the stupidity of the
> user ;).  Perl is known to hand the user a good (tree_branch_height -
> (user_height + 1)) worth of rope, but still recognizes that this is a
> fruitless pursuit. 

First of all, Perl makes no strict distinction between integers and
floats; it considers them all to be numbers. So when you perform '**'
it performs a floating-point exponentiation.

Second, Perl does not support large integers, so it drops significant
digits after 52 bits (15 decimal digits).

If you want you may require "bigint.pl" which is part of the standard
library. But that thing does not support operator overloading, and is not
a class either, and is much slower than Ruby's. And most of all it does
not support '**'. 

Ruby should be able to give an answer eventually. The resulting integer
should be approximately 70 megs in size. You may need a bit more RAM.



			*	*	*



Here's an expression that's valid syntax in both Perl and Ruby:

@a = 1 .. 10_000_000

However in practice Perl goes belly up.




matju

In This Thread