| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2864
Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:38 am Post subject: Print Value Output Format |
 |
|
Currently SDBG has output format of real numbers which is sometimes completely incomprehensible like A(1,1) or A(3,1) here
I'd like to suggest to add in settings new user defined format for large numbers. For example if number is larger than 10000 then do the output in E format something like 1pe22.15 instead of F format. Element A(4,1) for example looks perfect to me. Any objections? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 450
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder when we will have that much RAM in our desktops: A(3:1) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2864
Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
That number corresponds to 1.9 TB. Technically such amount of RAM on desktops would be achievable in a few years because one bit of RAM takes the same amount of silicon as 1 bit of SSD and 1TB SSDs just became mainstream almost reaching $100. But in reality RAM currently is price fixed by producers by a huge factors like almost 2 orders of magnitude and also there is no need in such huge amount of RAM on desktops for average users. Serious gamers prefer to have 32GB, because just the game upgrades and different levels of games weight for tens of GB. Gamers define the demand in RAM, not the power hi-tech users. BTW, new AMD processors for masses have addressable RAM limit 128 GB from 32 recently. Many supercomputers though have even more RAM than 1TB.
Looks like the demands for RAM will be continuing growing according to Moore's law and these 2 orders of magnitude will be taken in ~12-15 years though as i wrote above there is no technical difficulty to do that literally tomorrow. And RAM prices fluctuated in the past like hell. I remember ones in 1990th they fell 6 times in a matter of months
Last edited by DanRRight on Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 450
Location: Manchester
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2864
Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That by using XEONs processors, which are not a desktop mainstream. So for average desktop users even 20 years from now you will not lose anything taking format 1pe22.15 ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mecej4
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1896
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:09 am Post subject: Re: |
|
|
| DanRRight wrote: | | That number corresponds to 1.9 TB. |
Er,..., look again, please. It is, in fact, 19 TB.
That slip of yours perfectly makes your point! A long string of digits, without one or more blanks after each triplet of digits, or some other punctuation marks, is not easy to read without error for most people.
On the other hand, you could be actually quite right, if the byte grew to 80 bits by the time personal computers of that size became commodity items. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2864
Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right, mece4, one out of 10 people will correctly decyphering debugger!
I was thinking may be assembler loving people will be unhappy with 22.15 format because they potentially may like 23.16 for binary numbers displayed smoothly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
