Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

'“e” is a valid part of a number, I don’t understand why you have issues with it.'

That's a very programmer-centric take. A very, very programmer-centric take. The use of "e" for exponent in scientific notation is a very computer-oriented take on the problem. Such other places as you may have seen it used are leaks from the computer representation. Nobody else sees numbers that way; scientific notation is generally written as 3.278·10³⁶ (only with better superscripts), which is how it is taught in schools for the most part. There are many contexts where I would say it is not a valid part of a number, because I don't expect my users to know scientific notation, let alone an idiosyncratic rendering of it used only for historical reasons in certain niches of the programming world.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure it's just 'calculator notation' and not a leak from the computer representation, but rather done because of the limited space available (at least on older calculators).

I'm doubtful of this claim. My guess is that the 1.234E-8 type notation originates in floating-point input and output on computers.

This Fortran IV manual (early-mid 1960s, https://www.math-cs.gordon.edu/courses/cs323/FORTRAN/fortran...) lists the same exponential notation, but with capital E for REAL's and capital D for double's.

This pre-dates the first hand calculator I know of, the early HP's from 1968. These machines used the same notation as the HP-35 pictured below (https://www.hpmuseum.org/rpnvers.htm#num).

The HP-35 calculator came out in 1972. According to the page below, the scientific notation used is of the form

1.234-8

i.e., without the E (see the second row of the gallery).

https://vintagecalc.com/hp-35-red-dot/

Just a couple of data points.

> The use of "e" for exponent in scientific notation is a very computer-oriented take on the problem. Such other places as you may have seen it used are leaks from the computer representation. Nobody else sees numbers that way;

It’s a pain in the arse to write, though, which is why quite a lot of scientists and engineers use e even though they don’t know anything about programming and are very, very far from being CS people.

I don’t know anyone who would enter 310^8 naturally in an input field (besides, using for multiplication itself comes from ancient technological limits, but nobody uses the proper multiplication sign either).

So yes, you need to support e for scientific notations in any input field that can be used for large or small numbers.

> scientific notation is generally written as 3.278·10³⁶ (only with better superscripts), which is how it is taught in schools for the most part.

That’s how we write it in LaTeX and our reports, articles, and such. And presentations if you’re lucky. But again, nobody writes that if presentation does not matter enough to go through the hassle. Certainly not in plain text where you’d have to use Unicode characters, at which Windows is completely incompetent.

Perhaps, but the notation didn't exist before it was invented as part of the Fortran language.

your use of asterisk for multiplication has screwed up the formatting because two asterisks get interpreted as indicating italics

Oops, sorry

I have used a calculator before, and I would expect most users to have used one before too.

Even within the privileged US, you can't expect people to remember obscurities of calculator notation.

I’d hope so, it’s basically taught in the 2nd grade (group 4 here), along with how to read and write and it seems people still remember that ok. Google is also immensely helpful if people forget how to read numbers. /s

I guess the point is, you can parse it and output it in whatever format is appropriate, regardless of how it is stored.

States are also taught in schools and yet many people think New Mexico is outside the US.

If you are creating software for engineers, that's a fair assumption to make (that will understand what an exponent is). The public at large? Absolutely not.

That is a convention only commonplace on graphical calculators and modern scientifics with formatted infix entry. A traditional scientific just shows an exponent in a reserved display location.

A large segment of older adults have never used them.

I’ve been seeing it since I was a child on everything from cheap little eight digit calculators to expensive calculators with rolls of paper to graphing calculators.

> I have used a calculator before, and I would expect most users to have used one before too.

A _scientific_ calculator? Because many cheap calculators will just overflow and not use the scientific notation.

You severely overestimate the... amount of data people retain from school (to put it in nice terms).

> 3.278·10³⁶

As a Brit that looks really weird. I'd expect 3·278×10³⁶.

Brits use middots as decimals?

We call them decimal points. Most software uses full stops (aka periods, because that's what's on the keyboard), but decimal points are normal in typeset and handwritten maths.

yea and more! they use low-dot (period) when multiplying variables, and Roman digit for 1, and does not use the "-rd" ending names for the power of 1000: milliard, billiard…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com