zlacker

All you gotta do is look at the graphs to see posits are more accurate and precise for pretty much any given scenario, assuming the bits are distributed 'wisely'. Unfortunately, it's not easy to do in hardware and the hardware implementations suffer from rigidness.

I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty, as John will answer emails regarding this stuff. I've personally done so, and he's very polite and informative. I was using them for fractals, but using them in software, which was unfortunately very slow, but the results were amazing. I've read through his papers on them and it took me a while to really 'get it', but I did and oh man, even basic unums put floats to shame. While perhaps not a tremendous upgrade, I much prefer the distribution and accuracy and how there's far less overlap, NaNs, infinities, etc.

>>firebo+(OP)
I don't think you need to explain everything again because I am aware of posits' strengths over IEEE 754, that's why I acknowledged that first. But as an incremental improvement from IEEE 754, posits are just not enough to justify the switch. When people need something better served by posits, they don't use posits---they use non-standard variants of IEEE 754 (e.g. FTZ/DAZ, bfloat16).

>>lifthr+4I
I guess we just disagree. I find the distribution of posits very logical, and I can see your points, but I digress.