Decimal versus binary arithmetic was Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Printing from M/F COBOL
Next: Packed decimal versus binary was Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
From: HeyBub on 4 Apr 2008 09:53 Robert wrote: > > You thought that because 'everyone knows' binary fractions are > inaccurate. Some refuse to believe the number is an integer, not a > fraction. That was my whole point -- we could have been storing > currency amounts (dollars/pounds/zlotnys and cents) in binary all > along. We never needed packed decimal. It was an IBM sales gimmick, > and it worked. The alternative explanation was that the computer - first used in accounting departments - had to exactly reproduce the results obtained by adding machines and comptompters in order to be accepted in a commercial enviornment. Therefore, IBM invested untold treasure and time to develop circuitry to exactly mimic manual methods. But of course that's what you'd expect the Illuminati and the Freemasons to say, directed as they are by their alien overlords.
From: Robert on 4 Apr 2008 21:51 On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:50:39 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:13:23 -0600, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > >>You thought that because 'everyone knows' binary fractions are inaccurate. Some refuse to >>believe the number is an integer, not a fraction. That was my whole point -- we could have >>been storing currency amounts (dollars/pounds/zlotnys and cents) in binary all along. We >>never needed packed decimal. It was an IBM sales gimmick, and it worked. > >Packed decimal was never marketed as a Need. It was marketed as an >efficiency option. Saving space used to be a significant cost >factor. Binary takes 20% less space in memory. > Also, packed decimal was (and is) significantly quicker in >when the application wants Display and computational use of the same >number. Why was it used when the application did not need both formats, which was most of the time? >>If they did it in binary and got right answers, people would find out. Then the decimal >>ruse would be discredited. > >Most of us never saw a "ruse". Probably this was because we >understood what packed-decimal was all about and made our choices >accordingly. If you all truly understood what packed was all about, you all wouldn't have used it. >We also don't have our identity tied into understanding everything - >so when we do find that we had a misunderstanding, we don't need to >find someone to blame for trying to fool us. The brave new world would be better if people could just get along. Pointing out mistakes is against social harmony, thus antisocial. A soma 'holiday' will relieve bad memories and insure social stabilization.
From: Anonymous on 4 Apr 2008 21:39 In article <c2ldv3dtaij23o1d7h2377975e2053k57d(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:50:39 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: [snip] >> Also, packed decimal was (and is) significantly quicker in >>when the application wants Display and computational use of the same >>number. > >Why was it used when the application did not need both formats, which >was most of the time? I cannot speak for any circumstances beyond my own limited experiences, Mr Wagner... but those have it that the reason *any* method was used at *any* time was because Someone of Sufficient Authority deemed it so. Have you never seen a job-site where something similar took place? [snip] >>Most of us never saw a "ruse". Probably this was because we >>understood what packed-decimal was all about and made our choices >>accordingly. > >If you all truly understood what packed was all about, you all wouldn't >have used it. What you describe here appears to be a symptom but please, don't stop there, Mr Wagner... do tell, what are the criteria for this condition you're calling 'understanding'? Feel free to use both sides of the posting. DD
From: Robert on 4 Apr 2008 23:54 On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 01:39:33 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >In article <c2ldv3dtaij23o1d7h2377975e2053k57d(a)4ax.com>, >Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:50:39 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >[snip] > >>> Also, packed decimal was (and is) significantly quicker in >>>when the application wants Display and computational use of the same >>>number. >> >>Why was it used when the application did not need both formats, which >>was most of the time? > >I cannot speak for any circumstances beyond my own limited experiences, Mr >Wagner... but those have it that the reason *any* method was used at *any* >time was because Someone of Sufficient Authority deemed it so. You're overly hung up on pleasing the bossman. Imagine being the bossman, the one who makes such decisions. >Have you never seen a job-site where something similar took place? As a contractor, I cannot criticize poor decision processes in real life (only here). If shops were totally rational, they wouldn't hire contractors. I never did. >>>Most of us never saw a "ruse". Probably this was because we >>>understood what packed-decimal was all about and made our choices >>>accordingly. >> >>If you all truly understood what packed was all about, you all wouldn't >>have used it. > >What you describe here appears to be a symptom but please, don't stop >there, Mr Wagner... do tell, what are the criteria for this condition >you're calling 'understanding'? > >Feel free to use both sides of the posting. By understanding, I mean seeing beyond bits and bytes to the real meaning of ideas in the business, political and social realms. Too many techies have their heads buried in the sand, because they believe the invisible can't hurt them. When I do systems analysis, I write long paragraphs about legal and business issues. Techies find that unsettling, because they're unequipped to deal with it. They were expecting nothing but technospeak. They say those are questions for The Business to answer. One gets the impression that understanding nontechnical issues is a faux pax in the techie community, just as civilians think understanding technical issues qualifies them for a propeller benie.
From: Anonymous on 5 Apr 2008 10:03
In article <qkodv3hre4a4oiv5h2dfn0bgod1ccmo5qa(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: [snip] >That sort of ad hominem is what government and big corporations do when >caught in a lie to >which they have no rational defense. Members of this august forum have >more artful >responses. > >Robert: The sun rises in the east. [snip] >DocD: I barely know what side of the bed *I* get out on, much less anyone else. Mr Wagner, there is nothing I have ever read on UseNet that has been important enough for me to lie about; as I do not lie it would seem to be rather difficult to catch me in one. To accuse a person of lying is, in some places and times, a Very Serious Breach of Honor... but it seems that those who do not have something might find it easy to breach. DD |