# Talk:Factorial

## range limits for the factorial function[edit]

Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --Short Circuit 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

- Yes, for non-native speakers of any language, it would be nice to know how big the
**thingys**are:*int, short, long, long long*, etc. For experienced programmers, I imagine this is old hat, but to programmers who can barely spell**C**, ... not so obvious. --- Gerard Schildberger 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ───── Some factorial lengths ───── │ │ │ │ 10 ! = 7 digits │ │ 20 ! = 19 digits │ │ 52 ! = 68 digits │ │ 104 ! = 167 digits │ │ 208 ! = 394 digits │ │ 416 ! = 911 digits (8 deck shoe) │ │ │ │ 1k ! = 2,568 digits │ │ 10k ! = 35,660 digits │ │ 100k ! = 456,574 digits │ │ │ │ 1m ! = 5,565,709 digits │ │ 10m ! = 65,657,060 digits │ │ 100m ! = 756,570,556 digits │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

~~
In the table above, the factorial length for ~~**416!** should be **911** rather than **394**. Used www.javascripter.net/math/calculators/100digitbigintcalculator.htm to verify.

~~01:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)~~

- Yes, it was inadvertently copied from the previous line. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

## The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly[edit]

I think it is better to use generic x86, and at most to specify a "works with", if needed, rather than let proliferate 80286, 80386, 80486, ... —ShinTakezou 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

- I agree to a point; there's a definite progression and tendency toward backwards-compatibility. However, there are incompatible revisions. It's possible that different modes (real, protected, long and legacy) warrant some degree of recognition as their own languages--these modes represent forward and reverse compatibility constraints. --Michael Mol 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

## D output[edit]

~~
Is the ~~
-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
**D** output supposed to show (eight times) the value of (**15!**) ?

(This has been addressed and fixed.) -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)