Solution:
export type unsigned_int = numberexport type App = unknown
tbh c/c++ type system is super fucked up
What the fuck isunsigned long long intjust call itu64Well it isn’t always 64 bytes. Some architectures differ.
usizethen
you can just use
unsigned long long(drop the int) or, if it bothers you that much,uint64tbut keep in mind that yhe size ofunsigned long longmay vary depending on the architecturedeleted by creator
tbh unsigned int scares me too. I just use int anyway to avoid strange things happening.
The use of it quite limited in the every-day coders life. People acting like they be using 500TB databases these days.
Embedded software devs still exist btw
Stop lying, who in the modern world would need embedded systems?
I don’t see a use for embedded systems that can’t be adequately replaced with a Windows PC smh.
Netcode. I make my own layer 2 headers sometimes.
I use uints every day at work. They’re very useful for cases when you’ve only got a single byte or two bytes to work with. E.g. an 8-bit int will only get you to a max of 127, but of course an unsigned 8-bit gets you to 255. Similar concept with 16/32/64s. Very useful when you’re working with small amounts of available memory, such as when writing code to go on ASICs.
Yep, I always default to the largest possible type because compute is less valuable than my time on the weekend and the potential for any sort of overflow.
Long
Double
Big int
Etc.
deleted by creator
why not just compile with overflow checking? assuming the number should not reach the limits
The compiler doesn’t know what numbers are going to go into a variable, that’s a runtime thing. They might prevent a crash that way, but a crash or not doesn’t matter when people need the number in the database and the database doesn’t let you put the number in the database.
i mean, at least with rust, running in debug mode (or release with flags) will hard panic if an overflow occurs, bc it checks everytime a number is changed. it is obviously less performant to do this, so it does not check when running in release/production mode. the problem is if you need to have no overflows occur, it is better to throw an error and exit the program, than cause unexpected behaviour, eg. as an incorrect, but existing array item. this could be hard to find the cause of the bug if it doesnt throw
I’m a C# dev so I forget that anything that’s not this case even exists. Agreed 100 percent.
const a: any = “You have no power here!”
laughs in reinterpret_cast
Is it even a programming language if you can’t casually introduce type overflows?
typescript is still weakly typed.
it is just a hacky static analysis that compiles to weakly typed js
