Hacker News Reader

Comment by steveklabnik | Hacker News Reader

128 bit floats were removed years ago (June of 2014), here's the meeting notes from the time: https://github.com/rust-lang/meeting-minutes/blob/master/wee... (as with all old Rust stuff, please remember that details very much might have changed between then and now.)

In other words, they weren't removed because we fundamentally didn't want them. They were removed because of maintainability, usability, and usefulness concerns.

The RFC with justifications for why this was added (and all the related discussion) is already linked elsewhere in this thread. The same could still happen with f128 in the future.

View on HN

I wasn't able to find any real justification beyond (a) one vague mention of "some algorithms... such as certain cryptographic algorithms" and (b) the fact that clang supports it. Can you point to something more specific? Justification (b) in particular smells bad to me.

I wasn't involved in the discussion really, so I don't have anything off-hand.

I can see why (b) might smell a bit bad, but think of it this way: we share a backend with clang, and so if they think support is mature enough to ship, then that's a very positive sign.

Oh, just found this:

> The Duration type could be simplified with this: instead of using a u64 for seconds with a seperate u32 for nanoseconds, it could just be a single u128/i128 count of nanoseconds.

Of course, just a single u64 at ns precision would get you 500+ years of range. But ok.

Five hundred years and eighty-four years? Recorded human history is almost ten times that range and history to which we can get precise dates is nearly five times that range. There are financial debts being paid, today, that exist from nearly the limit of that range (Dutch debts dating from 1624) even if you left a mere quarter of it for the future. So why are you middlebrowing at this?

To be fair, you basically never need scale and precision at the same time. Debts from 400 years ago aren't known down to the nanosecond.

I can think of astronomical measures from a couple hundred years ago that are at least second-accurate. Do you want to have DurationSecondsOnly and Duration as types? =)

It's more an argument for floating point.

Floating point is awful if you care about precision.

What scenario would you need more than 53 bits of precision in a time variable for? Even eropple's somewhat excessive subsecond-accurate timing for an event several hundred years ago has plenty of room to spare with 53 bits.

"Absolute" timestamps. If you're using a double to represent, say, epoch time (technically relative to the relatively recent 1/1/1900), your precision has dropped off to about half a microsecond or so. I read GPU profiling results in nanoseconds.

You can work around the problem - time since program start, time since capture start, etc. - of course, this can lead to fun edge cases, where e.g. Windows 95/98 crashed due to a 32-bit milliseconds timer rollover after around 50 days. For comparison, pow(2,53) nanoseconds is only a little over 100 days. Of course, a floating point value won't roll over in quite the same way, but...

The problem is surmountable if you throw enough edge case handling at the problem. Force the devs to be vigilant about choosing the necessary precision, the proper time to measure relative to, for each possible application of anything time related, etc...

... or you could just throw more bits at the problem, and suddenly my accounting software can accurately calculate compound interest on both a 400 year old debt, and a 49 nanosecond debt clearing HFT trades, if that's your kind of thing - without as many edge cases to worry about.

EDIT: Use pow(x,y) formatting since HN collapses x double-star y to simply xy ...

Yeah, sorry, that was a bit of a knee-jerk response from me. I took TillE's comment to be more a statement of the general (IMO unfounded) mistrust of floating point, and my comment was intended to take it in that light. Once you have values in the domain you're interested in, floating point more than suffices for precision, and generally handles rounding better than the equivalently-sized fixed point variable.

I do agree that a general timestamp needs to be domain-agnostic, and I'm certainly not saying Rust should use it, not least because Rust aims to preserve the semantics of underlying APIs.

Here's another example like your Windows rollover - timing rollover caused the loss of the Deep Impact spacecraft.

"On September 20, 2013, NASA abandoned further attempts to contact the craft.[76] According to A'Hearn,[77] the most probable reason of software malfunction was a Y2K-like problem (at August 11, 2013, 00:38:49, it was pow(2,32) of one-tenth seconds from January 1, 2000)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(spacecraft)

You usually don't need scale and precision at the same time, but a lot of algorithms get a lot simpler if you don't have to worry about rounding errors that get worse with every operation.

Floating point errors are hard to reason about and often makes equality a very fuzzy concept. If your not starved for bandwidth or memory, large fixed precision numbers are incredibly useful.

Although a large, fixed precision type is probably an easier default, in practice a floating point variable will work at least as well as a 53 bit fixed integer scaled to the range you're interested in. Inexactness through rounding isn't a big deal, because you rarely care about exact equality for inexact measures like time.

It is closely related to "native" time representation, where you can frequently have u64 seconds in the API. Being able to represent them without a trap would be beneficial.

64 bit ns timestamps are ok if you are only recording current events, but are completely insufficient as a general purpose timestamp.

The x86-64 64x64->128 instructions.

When you say "details very much might have changed between then and now", are there any news on bringing in the float128 type? I mean, do you happen to know whether there is any reasonable chance of having it in Rust at all?

Nobody since then has championed it, so there's been no progress. Because of that, I'm not aware of how much effort it would be to add; the compiler has changed a lot since those days. That might make it easier or harder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com