On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:06 PM <doganad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > my statement may seem unlogical while evaluating and comparing the languages > as a whole.. > > I thought when I give a small number into the programme , the more decimals I > can see after the dot as an output, the more human readable it is. > > when I see a bunch of numbers with 'e' s I know the numbers are small but it > is hard for me to compare it to other numbers with 'e'. , specially with the > human eye. > > I dont know much about scala actually. I have just have tried to give 0.0001 > and it returned a presentation with an 'e' .whereas python takes 0.0001 and > gives 0.0001 . it made me think python is better in that specific subject. > > However, python though starts to give 'e' number when 5 decimals are given as > input. Although there can be systems around which are better in this > subject other things I can achieve in python overrides some disadvantages. > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The question here has nothing to do with a programming language. As a bystander, this thread is interesting in a strange way. We have a poster who has no programming experience, no background to understand floating point numbers, no concept of the difference between an internal computer usable representation of a number, and a human readable representation. I am sure I am much older than many people here. When I first learned about computers, and programming, and number formats, I also learned about binary numbers, how computers perform arithmetic calculations at a bit level, and lots of things no one really cares about today. Fast forward and we have a person who (I'm guessing) is trying to write a program to complete some schoolwork in a subject far afield for learning about computer programming. Although the problem to be solved seems to be statistical or somehow numeric, the poster doesn't seem to understand so much about the math either, having gone haywire over exponential notation. It is great that computers are so commonplace that problems can be studied and solved with them when the problem solver has so little basic understanding of the tool he is using. But the thread shows the downside to lacking the basics about the tool. I don't mean any negative connotation toward to original poster. The problem he poses is legitimate, and confounding for him and for those who have tried to answer him here since there are these hard disconnects about concepts that are required to understand the question. Its a problem that everyone confronts daily -- No one really knows how anything works under the hood. Think: car, toaster, microwave oven, Facebook algorithms, light bulbs, and on and on.... -- Joel Goldstick http://joelgoldstick.com/blog http://cc-baseballstats.info/stats/birthdays -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
