I think one of the main reason to use floor/ceilling is to predictably cast a double into int. This type signature kind of defeats this important purpose.

I don't know this historical context of java, but possibly at that time, people see type more of a burden than a way to garentee correctness? (which is kind of still the case for many programmers, unfortunately.

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You wouldn’t need floor/ceil for that. Casting a double to an int is already predictable as the java language spec explicitly says how to do it, so any JVM will do this the exact same way.

The floor/ceil functions are simply primitive math operations and they are meant to be used when doing floating point math.

All math functions return the same type as their input parameters, which makes sense. The only exception are those that are explicitly meant for converting between types.

[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"predictable" in the sense that people know how it works regardless what language they know.

I guess I mean "no surprise for the reader", which is more "readability" than "predictability"

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is there any language that doesn’t just truncate when casting from a float to an int?

[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As far as I know, haskell do not allow coresion of float to int without specifying a method (floor, ceil, round, etc): https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=Float+-%3E+Integer&scope=set%3Astackage

Agda seems to do the same: https://agda.github.io/agda-stdlib/Data.Float.Base.html