Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Calculate floating-point powers

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-30 10:20

seems bc and dc can't do it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-30 11:38

NO EXCEPTIONS!

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-30 11:39

butt cock and dick cunt

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-30 18:09

so? you should just be using your scheme interpreter anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 0:52

>>4
so? you should just be using ghci anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 1:29

>>1
get a better bc and dc.
or just use any shell that isn't complete shit:
$ echo $((4**0.5))
2.
or even one that is (ksh93):
$ echo $((pow(4,0,0,5)))
2

yes, ksh really is that stupid.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 2:03

>>5
Pronounced 'Ghucci'.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 3:30

>>5

ghci> 4**0.5
* Exception: Stack overflow

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 4:41

>>8
Your install is broken, cutter.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 4:52

>>9
Sorry, I didn't have half a gigibyte for a fucking compiler.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 4:58

>>10
Your lack of dedication to the art is... unsettling.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 5:47

>>9
what?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 7:59

>>12
Cutter.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 8:52

>>10
gigibyte
IHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 9:14

>>10
It's an interpreter as well.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 9:19

>>15
The fuck on, 0,5GB.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 14:53

bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
3 / 4
0
scale = 2
3 / 4
.75
Problem?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 14:55

>>17
Yes.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 15:00

>>6
arithmetic should be built into the shell
Oh, wow.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 15:22

>>19
What's the matter, non-free bash user?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 18:13

>> 17
This is free software
Lies.

>>19
http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_06_04
The shell should at least support what POSIX requires. Any shell that isn't complete shit should also support floating point arithmetic because if you support integer arithmetic it's trivial to add floating point.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 18:53

lrn2math

$ bc -l
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
e(l(1.01) * 0.5)
1.00498756211208902701

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 19:02

>>21
Shells shouldn't support integer arithmetic either. Use dc (or some equivalent program that doesn't suck).

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 19:56

>>23
POSIX > you

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 20:57

>>24
POSIX = balls

Who the hell wants a standard based on Unix?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 21:49

>>25
Everyone who writes operating systems except Microsoft, apparently.
It's better than a standard based on DOS.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 21:56

>>26
That's like saying vi is better than nano. It's true, but not because the former is good.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 22:03

>>27
if vi isn't good, why hasn't anyone come up with anything better yet?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 22:14

>>28
what about vim, you know, ``VI Improved''
That said, editing text is a solved problem and the majority of people who proclaim vi as backwards are retards who think comparing an IDE to a standalone text editor is a like-for-like comparison.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 22:41

>>28
Sam, which is what vi should have been. Acme, Emacs.

>>29
Vim is awful and worse than vi.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 22:47

>>30
acme requires either an x server or an operating system that's not even close to posix compliance (plan 9, inferno, or windows).
emacs is as bad as vim.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 23:10

>>31
Since I also said POSIX = balls, I have no idea why you think this would bother me. Also this is 2009; I think you have a bitmap display.

emacs is as bad as vim.
Oh, no. Emacs has none of Vim's problems.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 23:18

>>32
Also this is 2009; I think you have a bitmap display.
Your only exposure to computers may be your mom's PC, but the rest of us deal with headless servers more often than never, and while ssh can do X forwarding, running X on a server just to run a text editor is brain-damaged.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-31 23:20

>>33
CRUSHING REPLY.
>>32 should leave /prog/ forever.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 0:30

Oh, no. Emacs has none of Vim's problems.
it's big, slow, and broken. those are all of vim's problems.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 0:33

>>35
oh, and non-free, too.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 2:04

>>32
Who in 2009 would be caught dead using a bit-mapped display?  We have color these days, you know.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 3:40

>>33
Your only exposure to X may be nil, but the server runs on your local machine. Because running a graphics server on a headless machine makes no goddamn sense. X clients don't need a server installed locally, and wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it.

>>34
I wasn't aware that blatant misinformation qualified as a CRUSHING REPLY. Or is that just your way of saying, "I don't understand X either."?

>>37
In fact, some of us have 24-bit (bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit) bitmap displays.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 5:58

>>32,38
using x over ssh is even slower than using vim.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-01 11:19

>>38
You don‘t seem to understand the concept of a map.

>>38
You still need a nearly-complete X install on the server, along with whatever desktop environments your programs might depend on.  That‘s a lot more trouble than flicking the actual X server on and off, and that kind of bloat is hardly justifiable for a headless machine.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -