Can't wait to have it in my language!

The memory savings from 32 bit or even 16 bit floats are definitely not pointless! Not to mention doubling simd throughput. Speaking of which, without simd support this certainly can't be used in a lot of applications. Definitely makes sense for financial calculations though.

This seems optimized for fast integer operations. Except that if I only cared about integers, I'd use an actual integer type.

Previously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7365812 (2014, 187 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10243011 (2015, 56 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513717 (2018, 78 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20251750 (2019, 37 comments)

Also my past commentary about DEC64:

> Most strikingly DEC64 doesn't do normalization, so comparison will be a nightmare (as you have to normalize in order to compare!). He tried to special-case integer-only arguments, which hides the fact that non-integer cases are much, much slower thanks to added branches and complexity. If DEC64 were going to be "the only number type" in future languages, it had to be much better than this.

If you want the job done properly, this already exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal128_floating-point_form...

There are a bunch of different encodings for decimal floating-point. I fail to see how this is the standard that all languages are converging to.

IEEE754 normalizes two encodings, BID and DPD, for decimal32, decimal64 and decimal128 precision presets. This is neither of those.

Many libraries use an approach with a simple significand + exponent, similar to the article, but the representation is not standardized, some use full integral types for this rather than specific bits (C# uses 96+32, Python uses a tuple of arbitrary integers). It's essentially closer to fixed-point but with a variable exponent.

The representation from the article is definitely a fairly good compromise though, specifically if you're dealing with mostly-fixed-point data.

Atari 8-bit basic used something pretty similar to this [1], except it did have normalization. It only had 10 BCD digits (5 bytes) and 2 digits (1 byte) for exponent, so more of a DEC48 but still… That was a loooong time ago…

It was slightly more logical to use BCD on the 6502 because it had a BCD maths mode [2], so primitive machine opcodes (ADC, SBC) could understand BCD and preserve carry, zero etc flags

[1]: https://www.atarimax.com/freenet/freenet_material/5.8-BitCom...

[2]: http://www.6502.org/tutorials/decimal_mode.html

I was expecting something about floating point formats used by some DEC PDP series computer...

A goid friend of mine worked on decimal floating point for IBM Power chips (I think it was Power 7 which had hardware support).

Anyway, he insisted on calling it just "Decimal Floating". Because there was "no point".