Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Back in the dark ages, when I was in school, we were "encouraged" to take a
numerical analysis course if we were interested in computers. (I was an EE major.) It was not an easy topic, but it made us well aware of the difference between correct results and computational precision. I was recently astonished to find that most computer science students have no concept of this area and even less interest in it. These current thoughts extend to other areas: - C is more accurate than Fortran (or Basic, or what whatever) - Obtaining "stable" numeric results means you get the same answer if you run the program twice - C produces the fastest programs - if C is good then C++ is better - Using all the obscure C operators produces a better program (Anyone remember the IBM 7030 system? The user could control the rounding direction of the floating point LSB. In this case running a program twice (with different rounding options) really was relevant.) Bill W2WO |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
JvComm32 and other digisoft on WinXP | General | |||
Mismatch Uncertainty and an EZNEC transmission line sudy | Antenna | |||
EZNEC v. 4.0 at Dayton | Antenna | |||
3 antennas modeled with EZNEC | Antenna | |||
Eznec modeling loading coils? | Antenna |