Creating a byte[] of long size
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: instructor solution manual for Dynamics of Flight- Stability and Control, 3rd Ed by Etkin, Reid
Next: Supply AFF CAPS and hat ( www.nike-black.com )
From: Ian Shef on 8 Jul 2010 20:11 Arne Vajh�j <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote in news:4c365dbc$0$273$14726298 @news.sunsite.dk: <snip> > > I think you should assume YAGNI. > <snip> I had to look it up. YAGNI = You aren't going to need it GIYF
From: Boris Punk on 8 Jul 2010 21:02 "Arne Vajh�j" <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote in message news:4c3655fd$0$283$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk... > On 08-07-2010 18:22, Boris Punk wrote: >> Is there no BigList/BigHash in Java? > > No. > > But You can have a List<List<X>> which can then > store 4*10^18 X'es. > > Arne > > Please explain...
From: Patricia Shanahan on 8 Jul 2010 21:11 Arne Vajh�j wrote: > On 08-07-2010 17:35, Boris Punk wrote: >> Integer.MAX_VALUE = 2147483647 >> >> I might need more items than that. I probably won't, but it's nice to >> have >> extensibility. > > It is a lot of data. > > I think you should assume YAGNI. Historically, each memory size has gone through a sequence of stages: 1. Nobody will ever need more than X bytes. 2. Some people do need to run multiple jobs that need a total of more than X bytes, but no one job could possibly need that much. 3. Some jobs do need more than X bytes, but no one data structure could possibly need that much. 4. Some data structures do need more than X bytes. Any particular reason to believe 32 bit addressing will stick at stage 3, and not follow the normal progression to stage 4? Patricia
From: Arne Vajhøj on 8 Jul 2010 21:30 On 08-07-2010 21:02, Boris Punk wrote: > "Arne Vajh�j"<arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote in message > news:4c3655fd$0$283$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk... >> On 08-07-2010 18:22, Boris Punk wrote: >>> Is there no BigList/BigHash in Java? >> >> No. >> >> But You can have a List<List<X>> which can then >> store 4*10^18 X'es. > > Please explain... You have a list with up to 2*10^9 elements of type List<X> that each can contain up to 2^10^9 elements of type X. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 8 Jul 2010 21:32
On 08-07-2010 21:11, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> On 08-07-2010 17:35, Boris Punk wrote: >>> Integer.MAX_VALUE = 2147483647 >>> >>> I might need more items than that. I probably won't, but it's nice to >>> have >>> extensibility. >> >> It is a lot of data. >> >> I think you should assume YAGNI. > > Historically, each memory size has gone through a sequence of stages: > > 1. Nobody will ever need more than X bytes. > > 2. Some people do need to run multiple jobs that need a total of more > than X bytes, but no one job could possibly need that much. > > 3. Some jobs do need more than X bytes, but no one data structure could > possibly need that much. > > 4. Some data structures do need more than X bytes. > > Any particular reason to believe 32 bit addressing will stick at stage > 3, and not follow the normal progression to stage 4? I am absolutely sure that 64 bit array indexes will be needed and that it will not take so many years. But that is not the same as that the app the original poster is working on will need it. Arne |