yyny

@kasperd Yep, you could store decimal numbers with fixed precision as a multiple of ten, i.e. $1.23 becomes 123. In this way, most operations stay the same (adding $1.23 + $4.56 = $5.79 is the same as adding 123 + 456 = 579, then adding the dot and dollar back when displaying). Floating point numbers do something like this too, though, however, they use multiples of two instead of ten. If I were to guess I would think most accounting software just uses floating point numbers, and rounds to the nearest decimal when displaying.

Note that programs like Excel don't actually need to change the binary representation of a number, using the text as the binary representation is perfectly possible, however, CPU's only recognize a couple of representations, and doing operations on other representations, whilst possible to manually implement, would become a lot slower and more error-prone. It has been done, though; see Arbitrary precision arithmatic.

cont. Graphics Programmers would then be the ones delivering the architects pencil/paper/other equipment. But AFAIK, Graphics Programmers are relatively rare compared to Graphics Designers and Logic Programmers, especially with the current 'plug and play' game engines like Unity and Unreal Engine.

"Game engines are like kitchens, and developers (i.e. programmers) are like cooks." I think this is a bad analogy. IMO programmers are like kitchen managers, and artists are like cooks. The cooks make the meal, but they can't do their job if they don't have the right equipment. The kitchen managers will then make sure that the equipment is clean and usable. Possibly a better analogy: The artists are the architects who design the house, while the programmers deliver the equipment necessary to make building the house possible, from pencils for the architect to excavators for construction.

There, added a random square root algorithm from the interwebs.

By the way, I said your links were "random" because you sent two links, with conflicting statements, and quoted both of them as the same (that a brainfuck snippet does not count as a function (Which I never claimed it did), and that a turing machine may take input and put output from and to tape respectively (which my program does)). Oh, and "stack exchange", not "stack overflow"...

Wait. So you're telling me that brainfuck is equivalent to a Turing machine? brainfuck = turing machine? Then what's the problem? Do you want me to change my title to "Turing machine in brainfuck notation"?

esolangs.org/wiki/Talk:Brainfuck#Turing_Machine

If that's not enough, ZZ038 proved it in this esolang talk page

From this article on wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine) it seems pretty clear to me that brainfuck is a turing machine, but I'm honestly wondering why we're still having this conversation. The answer is valid and the OP already stated that it's OK to return the squared distance as long as there doesn't exists a square root algorithm within the brainfuck environment. I'll post the square root algorithm somewhere today anyway, which would make the complete program valid.

@Dennis Your second link conflict with what you said earlier in that turing machines CAN in fact accept input from tape and output CAN be written to the final tape position. Either way, I added a minimal complete definition, specially for you <3. This program no longer conflicts with the OP's rules (If we can get the discussion about precision out of the way). Please don't link random stackoverflow discussions without reading them, that way we won't get anywhere.

@Dennis I don't agree. The discussion about whether or not the brainfuck tape counts as arguments is not up to me, but the value at the pointer is definitly the return value of every brainfuck program. I already stated I might consider creating a square root algorithm, however, as DenkerAffe already stated, for the time being, its OK if I submit the squared distance instead, as long as I clearly state it in my answer.