trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> 
> But in this case it simply a time issue. We as a community (the larger 
> computer science community) have certainly had enough time to iron the kinks 
> with rounding, for instance. Its really sad that we don't have a good 
> standard for such and are still plagued with it.
> 

It's not a matter of computer science, but of economics.

Implementing those algorithms in silicon is expensive, esp. if we don't
have practice at it. Call it hundreds of millions, counting the research
that precedes it.

Convincing people to buy an expensive chip that their software doesn't
support is a huge PR task, not quite on a par with convincing al Qaeda
to become Methodists.

Rewriting the compilers and the runtime environments to support these
chips is another gargantuan task.

And all of this to solve a problem that is very minor and is chiefly
bothersome to those who have had fewer than four semesters of computer
science.

Given a choice between improved floating point and a mission to Mars,
I'd take the latter.


Hal