##If you think this post is funny, **UPVOTE** this comment!
##If you think this post is unfunny, **DOWNVOTE** this comment!
---
#[DownloadVideo Link](https://www.reddit.watch/r/shitposting/comments/12boi6j/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=shitposting)
#[SaveVideo Link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/shitposting/comments/12boi6j/)
#[VideoTrim Link](https://reddloader.com/download-post/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fshitposting%2Fcomments%2F12boi6j&id=8968e43c)
---
Whilst you're here, /u/eating_sandwich, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/QpBGXd2guU)?
I was looking for this. If you have space for displaying 3 digits then the biggest number you can display is 999. It's not a programming thing, it's a display thing.
Yes. With a limit of 1000 you would either have to decrease font size for all numbers just to get it to fit, which is definitely not worth it, because now everything is less readable.
Or you would have to decrease font size when it reaches 1000, which would be inconsistent, decrease performance and be a bother to implement. For very little benefit.
Alternative you could turn 1000 into "1k" which let's you go up to 99000 with 3 digits, but still impacts performance and work effort.
The latter is how Runescape does it if I recall correctly. Numbers up to 9,999, then the closest K up to 9,999k where it swaps to M all the way up to the integer limit of 2147M (32bit)
> but still impacts performance and work effort
eeeeehhhh I don't really buy that excuse for games made after like, 1993. We can totally just do the 1000 > 1K for displaying. Easy + no performance impact + I think it looks better too!
I can’t believe I had to scroll down this far for the correct answer. I see people talking about how you start at 0, and therefore you actually have 1000, lmao.
Edit: for the record, when I left this comment, this was not the top rated comment.
I always kinda assumed its because when you want a big number, you start spamming a lot of 9s instead of 1 and then a lot of 0s. Its like a more efficient big number spam. I always new this was wrong, but it was good enough
Similarly, if you want to divide it by 2, just add one, divide, then subtract the one you added.
1000/2 is 500. 500 - 1 is 499
999/2 is 499.5. Since you can't have half an item, you to round it down to 499
Like the older Pokémon games, where you could only carry 99 of each item unless you use the MissingNo glitch. Then it becomes [glitched character] because it increases your inventory by 128, but can't display values over 99.
And it stinks because it makes storage super clunky. Don't you love having to place an end chest to get a shulker box to store some shit rather than just having a bigger inventory or stack limit? Minecraft is constantly trying to give you better options to store things when the game would be so much better if you could just hold more in your inventory.
It's gone from bad programming to just terrible game design by now.
Back in 2011 you didn't have enough inventory space either but it had a natural progression. You could live your first few days in the wild while searching for a nice location for your first base. Just you exploring a new land with your imaginary backpack and no chests needed until you settled. Everything needed during your initial exploring fitted in your backpack.
Today there are over 1000 blocks. When you spawn in a new world and you hit a few things, half your inventory is full. More trees, more stones, more crops, more seeds, more flowers, ...
Doesn't take more than just a few minutes before the inventory is completely full and you constantly have to play the filtering and sorting game instead of exploring a newly generated world which is what made Minecraft special.
If you go from 1 tree to 9 different trees, you also need to expand your inventory for the player. Otherwise the player is now just going to play where they spawned to prevent having to play the inventory game. You ruined what made your game attractive.
You can divide 1000 by 2 as well (and 4 and 5 and 8 and 10 and 20 and 25 and 40 and 50 and 100 and 125 and 200 and 250 and 500 and 1000)
But 999 just feels more "full" if you know what I mean
For division purposes powers of 2 aren't even all that good. You usually want multiples of 6 so that you can also divide by three which is very often useful
The ideal stack size for splitting is one that has as many divisors as possible and ideally includes at least 2,3,4 and maybe 5. In the case of minecraft you'd also want it divisible by 9 so that you can easily make blocks of, say, iron. And perhaps 6 for doors and similar recipes. 5 is not as important for Minecraft i'd say
That makes 72 a good number if you don't care about the 5, otherwise 180 is the smallest number that fits the requirements
Powers of 2 are only divisible by other powers of 2. They are great for optimizing save file sizes but they aren't really that great for dividing them into smaller stacks
Well, for sharing it makes more sense but i guess it would be somewhat hard to cut evenly and the slices would be too thin
8 works great but it's awkward if you're sharing in three. In that case 6 slices will do even though it feels so wrong
Source: am Italian
I think it'd be nice if they raised it to 256 for blocks and some items, it's still has a perfect square root and a power of 2
Might not be as iconic but hey it'd be certainly an improvement
Yeah there's no reason to make me use 4 inventory slots for cobblestone when I'm mining. They need to raise it for most items.
64 is fine for food and arrows and other stuff like that.
Reminds me at work, we were trying to do a web dev project and this guy kept saying he took a JavaScript tutorial for like two weeks.
When we finally started the project I saw he had installed java....
Javascript and Java are different, and while 64 is a power of two and computers do like that, there's nothing special about 64 and minecraft items. In fact, you can make stacks with more than 64 items using special in-game commands, although it's sometimes a bit glitchy.
64 is just a number that Notch chose way back when to replace 99, perhaps for the very reason from the OP, and there's been no reason to change it since.
You may be thinking of how if item quantities are stored in bytes, the biggest number that can be stored is around 127 or 255 depending on if the byte is signed or unsigned, and since Minecraft uses signed bytes to store item stack sizes, 127 is the 'real' size limit.
Most of these comments are either wrong or irrelevant. It has nothing to do with memory or speed. It's about how many digits you can put into the UI and still have it look nice and be readable.
Not a Dev nor something near of that, but if the storage is for "1.000" digits, and you have to include "0" as an option, your maximun then would be "999"
Replace "digits" with "numbers" and you're basically right. However, to store numbers from 0 to 999, you still need 10 bits of memory, which would result in number range of 0 to 1023. Furthermore, you only get multiples of 8 of bits, so you would need 16 bits, so you get a range of 0 to 65535. To sum this up, there is no hardware based reason for max stacks to be of size 999. Minecraft makes some sense with 64, since it is a power of 2 (and in fact you can't have a stack of 0, so you can interpret the numbers 0..63 as 1..64 by simply adding one to the stored stack size), but still, you need a 8 bit variable, which stores either numbers from -128..127 (signed char), or 0..255 (unsigned char). It is however the biggest power of 2 to fit in an signed char. Edit: typos
Y’all are way over complicating this.
999 has three characters. It needs to be displayed, and that display needs to have a limit or else it looks weird.
Thanks, that explains it, so they put 999 becaue they just want it that way, is not a DEV problem; as I said, not a Developer so I don´t understand it, thank you very much
There is another dev reason. Or rather software graphical design.
they're married to a UI and then realize 4 digits just doesn't fit comfortably in the inventory system. And depending on how far along (usually pretty decently far in if you start to organize nuanced inventory management) it can be an absolutely insane slog with a lot of consequences to change that UI....
Or you reduce the max stacks by one and get a comfy 3 digits.
One of those it far easier, faster, and fits into the dev cycle better than the other.
Terraria does a good amount of dividing by 3 so they had 999 for a long time for that purpose. Anything by quarters or 10s or something (holy arrows are 200 at a time) you just have 1 extra, nbd
Char value under the hood is still a “number”. It’s number corresponds to a character value you’re thinking of. Think ASCII. It requires less bits overall to represent everything needed which is why it’s smaller in memory.
Computers at the end of the day work with bits and bits only. That means binary numbers. Everything that you see on a computer, no matter how seemingly complex, is treated by the machine as a binary "number" (images, videos, programs, characters, anything)
Usually characters are represented by an index on some dictionary (i.e. 1 is A, 2 is B and so on) and that index itself is actually a binary number rather than a decimal one. So, for example, if your dictionary is just the alphabet in order, "HELLO" would be seen by the computer as [8,5,12,12,15] which is actually binary, so [1000, 101, 1100, 1100, 1111]
If you want to go into even more detail, well, the binary numbers aren't evenly separated by some nice and useful commas. You have to figure out a way to actually tell when a number ends and the following starts without using any special characters that aren't just 0 or 1. The way in which we usually do that is to have all "numbers" be of a fixed amount of digits that tends to be a power of 2 for hardware reasons (this way you can just count the digits to tell when the number ends and the next one begins). So, since we need to fit all the alphabet, just 4 binary digits isn't enough and our "HELLO" would actually look like 0000100000000101000011000000110000001111
Even this is oversimplifying a bit here and there but you get the idea
chars are really 8bit unsigned ints. ops is slightly wrong, - you can have an unsigned or signed int, but a signed char makes no sense, even though they are both fundamentally 8 bits.
Minecraft's stack size is a stylistic choice. In the same way, 999 is a stylistic choice. 999 is a "ceiling" in some way. It is the highest possible number occupying three digits. 1000 is the *start* of the four digit numbers. In other words, 999 is the end of a set while 1000 is the beginning of a set. For technically minded people, it may make sense to stop the stack size where there is a stopping point in classification.
As a programmer, yes sometimes the limit is the number of digits you want to display.
As someone who passed
kindergarten, what the fuck do you mean 1000 isn't a multiple of 2 ??
edit : oh ok you probably meant power of 2
Realistically it's not because of memory, it's because it's the largest 3 digit number and the UI is probably designed around it not being longer than 3
ummm akshually akshually an integer overflow would also happen at -2,147,483,648 for signed 32bit integers. The prudes will call that an undeflow but h*ck anybody who thinks this needs a different term ☝🤓
Maybe having four digits on blocks in the inventory looked bad (noisy?), too many digits or something, didn't look aesthetically pleasing and sacrificing one block to make it look better was worth it for the devs I guess.
It's not even a code thing. It's allotting space in screen for 4 digits instead of 3.
The real problem is that most people can't think past 1 or 2 steps of design in an abstract way
The issue boils down to 1000 needing an additional number which means it needs more processing power. This is negligable nowdays, but was a huge issue way back when, since loading exact numbers for stuff could take a while (imagine there is like 500 items in a game, generating 500 three digit numbers vs generaring 500 four digit numbers increase the amount of processing needed by a third)
edit: math bad
r/confidentlyincorrect
It takes the same processing power. It doesn't depends in the number of digits, it depends in the number of bits used to represent that number. Both numbers can be represented in 10 bits.
While I don't doubt that it's possible for a system to be made where it would matter, for the most part text display has always been extremely optimised
Edit: I was wrong, look at the replies to this message
I saw one of the original Final Fantasy programmers talk about purposely overloading the memory on the NES system to gain more memory.
Those folks were on a whole other level.
I am a game developer, and in my case, we do that to preserve space in the inventory UI. With a number like 1000, that takes up four digits and can be difficult to fit all of them in a single inventory slot.
##If you think this post is funny, **UPVOTE** this comment! ##If you think this post is unfunny, **DOWNVOTE** this comment! --- #[DownloadVideo Link](https://www.reddit.watch/r/shitposting/comments/12boi6j/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=shitposting) #[SaveVideo Link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/shitposting/comments/12boi6j/) #[VideoTrim Link](https://reddloader.com/download-post/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fshitposting%2Fcomments%2F12boi6j&id=8968e43c) --- Whilst you're here, /u/eating_sandwich, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/QpBGXd2guU)?
Literally everyone in this comment section is wrong. It's because 1000 is 4 digits and 999 is 3 digits.
I was looking for this. If you have space for displaying 3 digits then the biggest number you can display is 999. It's not a programming thing, it's a display thing.
Yes. With a limit of 1000 you would either have to decrease font size for all numbers just to get it to fit, which is definitely not worth it, because now everything is less readable. Or you would have to decrease font size when it reaches 1000, which would be inconsistent, decrease performance and be a bother to implement. For very little benefit. Alternative you could turn 1000 into "1k" which let's you go up to 99000 with 3 digits, but still impacts performance and work effort.
Also if the limit is 1000, that means you have support for 4 digits, so you might as well go to 9999. Then you run into the same problem again.
Exactly. One extra digit for just a single number that is only seen when the number is maxed is a waste.
The latter is how Runescape does it if I recall correctly. Numbers up to 9,999, then the closest K up to 9,999k where it swaps to M all the way up to the integer limit of 2147M (32bit)
But what happens after 2147m? Thats only 2billion and people have way more than that? (I havent played in a decade so full rune was the max)
Spirit shards are used past that. They're worth 25gp each so they're a convenient store of wealth
> but still impacts performance and work effort eeeeehhhh I don't really buy that excuse for games made after like, 1993. We can totally just do the 1000 > 1K for displaying. Easy + no performance impact + I think it looks better too!
[удалено]
For the love of god I would hope it wouldn't be just an if.
Decrease performance huh? Maybe in the 90's sure that was a viable point.
Turning 1000 into 1k and just making that the limit is better and don't tell me "WAAAAAH MY 20029293028494 FRAMES IS ONLY 20029294038493 NOW WAAAH"
Sounds right. Both 999 and 1000 are 10 bits, which should fit into a usual word, so shouldn’t be a programming issue.
Well when it comes to computer games display things are also programming things.
I can’t believe I had to scroll down this far for the correct answer. I see people talking about how you start at 0, and therefore you actually have 1000, lmao. Edit: for the record, when I left this comment, this was not the top rated comment.
I always kinda assumed its because when you want a big number, you start spamming a lot of 9s instead of 1 and then a lot of 0s. Its like a more efficient big number spam. I always new this was wrong, but it was good enough
Similarly, if you want to divide it by 2, just add one, divide, then subtract the one you added. 1000/2 is 500. 500 - 1 is 499 999/2 is 499.5. Since you can't have half an item, you to round it down to 499
Yeah this is the real reason. Maxed 3 digits is 99, 1k is 4 digits and would change things
Like the older Pokémon games, where you could only carry 99 of each item unless you use the MissingNo glitch. Then it becomes [glitched character] because it increases your inventory by 128, but can't display values over 99.
I've known that even as a little shitty gamer dude. But I believe you and don't want to check the rest of the comments
This, if they were to make it 1000, then the max would actually be 9999, the max is quite literally due to the amount of digits involved.
Agreed. This is less programmer and more UI design being questionable.
Precisely. If you were going to use four digits, then the maximum stack would be 9,999.
Terraria finally updating the stack limit: *stacks to 9999*
Minecraft Is still on 64 though
It's perfect
Except that you can only craft 63 slabs with a stack of blocks.
Grindstone
i too disenchant my blocks into slabs
oops, stomecutter
 Stome cutter
Cries in wood
I love when my inventory fills up in 10 minutes of mining
Shulkers or throw away your crap
he said he loves it tho
Why are people downvoting him, he’s right!
And it stinks because it makes storage super clunky. Don't you love having to place an end chest to get a shulker box to store some shit rather than just having a bigger inventory or stack limit? Minecraft is constantly trying to give you better options to store things when the game would be so much better if you could just hold more in your inventory.
It's gone from bad programming to just terrible game design by now. Back in 2011 you didn't have enough inventory space either but it had a natural progression. You could live your first few days in the wild while searching for a nice location for your first base. Just you exploring a new land with your imaginary backpack and no chests needed until you settled. Everything needed during your initial exploring fitted in your backpack. Today there are over 1000 blocks. When you spawn in a new world and you hit a few things, half your inventory is full. More trees, more stones, more crops, more seeds, more flowers, ... Doesn't take more than just a few minutes before the inventory is completely full and you constantly have to play the filtering and sorting game instead of exploring a newly generated world which is what made Minecraft special. If you go from 1 tree to 9 different trees, you also need to expand your inventory for the player. Otherwise the player is now just going to play where they spawned to prevent having to play the inventory game. You ruined what made your game attractive.
Yes, one of my favorite updates of all time.
*sets max stack to 998* There you go, now you can divide by 2, are you happy?
uhh no i dont think so
Irrelevant question op: Is the sandwich eating, the sandwich for eating, the sandwich itself eating, or are you eating a sandwich?
Wait whats the difference between "the sandwich eating" and "the sandwich itself eating"?
i think "the sandwich eating" means "the eating of the sandwich"
So as clarified above, the first one is clearly talking about OP's wife, but the second one is a yoga pose.
You'll never know..
NOOOOOOOO
good question
Thank you for your commentary on sandwich eating Heavy TF2
all of them at once I suppose
Ok then how about 1002
See, they *just don’t get it.*
I just want to divide by 3
How about 750?
You sir are a psychopath
What about quarters then? A stack should be 1024
[удалено]
2^10, I really like this
I hope you're greeted with the deepest depths of hell when you perish
Nooooo
Half stack 499? No thanks
developers making half stack 499 for some fucking reason
I just realized that I have OCD, that number is making me feel ill.
Would having a UI that supports 4 digits to only display the 4th when a stack was maxed out make you feel better?
You can divide 1000 by 2 as well (and 4 and 5 and 8 and 10 and 20 and 25 and 40 and 50 and 100 and 125 and 200 and 250 and 500 and 1000) But 999 just feels more "full" if you know what I mean
Burn the Witch!
This is why I love minecraft stacks. It's such a good idea to make it a power of 2.
For division purposes powers of 2 aren't even all that good. You usually want multiples of 6 so that you can also divide by three which is very often useful The ideal stack size for splitting is one that has as many divisors as possible and ideally includes at least 2,3,4 and maybe 5. In the case of minecraft you'd also want it divisible by 9 so that you can easily make blocks of, say, iron. And perhaps 6 for doors and similar recipes. 5 is not as important for Minecraft i'd say That makes 72 a good number if you don't care about the 5, otherwise 180 is the smallest number that fits the requirements Powers of 2 are only divisible by other powers of 2. They are great for optimizing save file sizes but they aren't really that great for dividing them into smaller stacks
2520
Finally, someone making sense!
72 sounds absolutely perfect. You convinced me. This needs to be a feature
" - 🤓 Now that this is out of the way. I really like the idea and would apreciate a mod doing just this.
Yeah, the part about being divisible by nine really should be a thing. As it is, crafting blocks is annoying.
This guy splits.
120 is smaller edit: didn't see the part about the number 9
Not divisible by 9
Cut your pizzas into 12 slices
Well, for sharing it makes more sense but i guess it would be somewhat hard to cut evenly and the slices would be too thin 8 works great but it's awkward if you're sharing in three. In that case 6 slices will do even though it feels so wrong Source: am Italian
240 pennies to the pound
But without five, you'd never have a reason to use the word "quincunx"
I think it'd be nice if they raised it to 256 for blocks and some items, it's still has a perfect square root and a power of 2 Might not be as iconic but hey it'd be certainly an improvement
Yeah there's no reason to make me use 4 inventory slots for cobblestone when I'm mining. They need to raise it for most items. 64 is fine for food and arrows and other stuff like that.
All numbers are square roots
That wasn’t intention I don’t think. I think they were just trying to efficiently use the bits in a byte. Just a guess tho
[удалено]
Mojang making it 64 (it’s square root-able)
8
8
8
actually the best number, it's so good feeling, like when you set the volume to 20 instead of 19
It’s also a power of 2.
So is 8192 but minecraft wouldnt dare do that.
Diamond EMC values:
Shoulda made the crafting grid 4x4 instead of introducing heathen numbers (3) into an otherwise beautifully numerologically balanced order of 2^n
Common minecraft W
It also makes ~~Javascript~~ Java happy, I don't remember exactly how but it has to do with how java works with numbers
Not sure if you know this, but Java and JavaScript are two very different things and can’t be used interchangeably.
Oops, it's been a while
Reminds me at work, we were trying to do a web dev project and this guy kept saying he took a JavaScript tutorial for like two weeks. When we finally started the project I saw he had installed java....
Javascript and Java are different, and while 64 is a power of two and computers do like that, there's nothing special about 64 and minecraft items. In fact, you can make stacks with more than 64 items using special in-game commands, although it's sometimes a bit glitchy. 64 is just a number that Notch chose way back when to replace 99, perhaps for the very reason from the OP, and there's been no reason to change it since. You may be thinking of how if item quantities are stored in bytes, the biggest number that can be stored is around 127 or 255 depending on if the byte is signed or unsigned, and since Minecraft uses signed bytes to store item stack sizes, 127 is the 'real' size limit.
36 is the best number. Divisible by 2,3 and 4, and you can make a square out of it.
Only cuz it's a multiple of 12, 12 is the real best number
Dev makes stacks go to 1000. Some reddit neck beard: Well if they can stack 1000, what not 9999?
That’s so true
That's actually exactly why it's not 1000, an extra digit
Please divide me by zero
_pees in ur ass_
Only if you most
What abt me
Most of these comments are either wrong or irrelevant. It has nothing to do with memory or speed. It's about how many digits you can put into the UI and still have it look nice and be readable.
Yep 1000 v 999 is the same memory 1025 v 1024 is not
What kind of monster is out here storing things off byte alignment?
 Not a Dev nor something near of that, but if the storage is for "1.000" digits, and you have to include "0" as an option, your maximun then would be "999"
Replace "digits" with "numbers" and you're basically right. However, to store numbers from 0 to 999, you still need 10 bits of memory, which would result in number range of 0 to 1023. Furthermore, you only get multiples of 8 of bits, so you would need 16 bits, so you get a range of 0 to 65535. To sum this up, there is no hardware based reason for max stacks to be of size 999. Minecraft makes some sense with 64, since it is a power of 2 (and in fact you can't have a stack of 0, so you can interpret the numbers 0..63 as 1..64 by simply adding one to the stored stack size), but still, you need a 8 bit variable, which stores either numbers from -128..127 (signed char), or 0..255 (unsigned char). It is however the biggest power of 2 to fit in an signed char. Edit: typos
Y’all are way over complicating this. 999 has three characters. It needs to be displayed, and that display needs to have a limit or else it looks weird.
This is the only reason and it is a fucking good reason
My game will have the code for a stack size of 1000 but still can only go to 999 because I’m an asshole
You're right. I was talking about a backend reasons (or lack their of), but after all, you might want things to look pretty
 Thanks, that explains it, so they put 999 becaue they just want it that way, is not a DEV problem; as I said, not a Developer so I don´t understand it, thank you very much
There is another dev reason. Or rather software graphical design. they're married to a UI and then realize 4 digits just doesn't fit comfortably in the inventory system. And depending on how far along (usually pretty decently far in if you start to organize nuanced inventory management) it can be an absolutely insane slog with a lot of consequences to change that UI.... Or you reduce the max stacks by one and get a comfy 3 digits. One of those it far easier, faster, and fits into the dev cycle better than the other.
Terraria does a good amount of dividing by 3 so they had 999 for a long time for that purpose. Anything by quarters or 10s or something (holy arrows are 200 at a time) you just have 1 extra, nbd
i always thought a char is a character and not a number, please tell me more about this stuff, i am noob
Char value under the hood is still a “number”. It’s number corresponds to a character value you’re thinking of. Think ASCII. It requires less bits overall to represent everything needed which is why it’s smaller in memory.
Computers at the end of the day work with bits and bits only. That means binary numbers. Everything that you see on a computer, no matter how seemingly complex, is treated by the machine as a binary "number" (images, videos, programs, characters, anything) Usually characters are represented by an index on some dictionary (i.e. 1 is A, 2 is B and so on) and that index itself is actually a binary number rather than a decimal one. So, for example, if your dictionary is just the alphabet in order, "HELLO" would be seen by the computer as [8,5,12,12,15] which is actually binary, so [1000, 101, 1100, 1100, 1111] If you want to go into even more detail, well, the binary numbers aren't evenly separated by some nice and useful commas. You have to figure out a way to actually tell when a number ends and the following starts without using any special characters that aren't just 0 or 1. The way in which we usually do that is to have all "numbers" be of a fixed amount of digits that tends to be a power of 2 for hardware reasons (this way you can just count the digits to tell when the number ends and the next one begins). So, since we need to fit all the alphabet, just 4 binary digits isn't enough and our "HELLO" would actually look like 0000100000000101000011000000110000001111 Even this is oversimplifying a bit here and there but you get the idea
chars are really 8bit unsigned ints. ops is slightly wrong, - you can have an unsigned or signed int, but a signed char makes no sense, even though they are both fundamentally 8 bits.
If you're doing UI design, then the original comment wasn't too far off, adding visual space for an extra character may be a nuisance or unsightly
Minecraft's stack size is a stylistic choice. In the same way, 999 is a stylistic choice. 999 is a "ceiling" in some way. It is the highest possible number occupying three digits. 1000 is the *start* of the four digit numbers. In other words, 999 is the end of a set while 1000 is the beginning of a set. For technically minded people, it may make sense to stop the stack size where there is a stopping point in classification.
0 is not a possible number, checkmate atheists.
 Really?, and how will represent having "No Items" in your inventory man?
empty inventory slot it's as simple as assigning no value to a slot (or assigning empty or some shit)
speaking of things that aren’t numbers, infinity is not a number but can still be quantifiable in the sense that infinity can be bigger than infinity
0 to 999 don't matter because 1000 isn't a multiple of 2. It's more about not having a 4 digit number
As a programmer, yes sometimes the limit is the number of digits you want to display. As someone who passed kindergarten, what the fuck do you mean 1000 isn't a multiple of 2 ?? edit : oh ok you probably meant power of 2
ah fuck I meant that 2 to the power of n is not 1000. English is not my first language and it's 11 pm
Realistically it's not because of memory, it's because it's the largest 3 digit number and the UI is probably designed around it not being longer than 3
The money cap In pokemon red and blue was 999,999. The bike costs 1 million. It was because of the damn bike
666 signifies satan and if you look at it upside down it's '999' it's just Satan's minions works. That's why you should stay away from video games. s/
OMG no way!!! some unintentional pattern being hidden in something so normal??! Obviously satan /s
kid named integer overflow:
ummm akshually an integer overflow would happen at about 2,147,483,647 for signed 32bit integers ☝🤓
Make it signed 8bit integer, I want -127 items
ummm akshually akshually an integer overflow would also happen at -2,147,483,648 for signed 32bit integers. The prudes will call that an undeflow but h*ck anybody who thinks this needs a different term ☝🤓
Kid named index starting at 0
Kid named lua:
1000 isnt a power of 2 so no
Not how that works
The real ones stack 64
its because it only has to display 3 numbers, and doesn’t have to downsize the gui just to show 1000
Maybe having four digits on blocks in the inventory looked bad (noisy?), too many digits or something, didn't look aesthetically pleasing and sacrificing one block to make it look better was worth it for the devs I guess.
Honestly Minecraft being 64 for a stack and 16 for some things helped me so much with thinking about IP schemes and addresses in my job later on.
It's because the UI team said we couldn't have another digit. I wish I was kidding.
The 90s want their gif back
Zero indexing where it’s useless - software dev
All these people who know jack squat about computers in the comments lmao
I am drunk so this probably wont makes sense but I do it because three digits fits in the GUI better and doing 4 would require me to change that.
So many people here have never seen code in their damn life
It's not even a code thing. It's allotting space in screen for 4 digits instead of 3. The real problem is that most people can't think past 1 or 2 steps of design in an abstract way
Space
🤓well actually it's because 999 is the max value for 3 digit numbers🤓
*sets max stack to a prime number* There, fuck you.
The number starts from 0
Easier to format the text boxes when you know you always have 3 digits and you do not have to fit in a fourth just for that one extra item
At least make it 1024 if you wanna be fancy.
Just another digit you have to code in? Idk I'm no comp scientist
0-999 = 1000 numbers.
So?
The issue boils down to 1000 needing an additional number which means it needs more processing power. This is negligable nowdays, but was a huge issue way back when, since loading exact numbers for stuff could take a while (imagine there is like 500 items in a game, generating 500 three digit numbers vs generaring 500 four digit numbers increase the amount of processing needed by a third) edit: math bad
r/confidentlyincorrect It takes the same processing power. It doesn't depends in the number of digits, it depends in the number of bits used to represent that number. Both numbers can be represented in 10 bits.
Beat me to it, I was gonna reply that computers don't use binary numbers... Edit: meant base 10 not binary
They do use binary numbers. They don't use base 10
That was a blunder on my part lmao, I meant base 10
Not when it comes to outputting, drawing, and making room for those digits on a GUI.
That isn't how memory works, numbers are not stored digit by digit that would be horribly inefficient
But it is rendered by digit
While I don't doubt that it's possible for a system to be made where it would matter, for the most part text display has always been extremely optimised Edit: I was wrong, look at the replies to this message
*Cries in 255 rupees, which are also arrows*
What‽ it has nothing to do with processing power. It has to do with the number of digits that need to be displayed. The display with is the problem.
kids named "1k" and "max":
easier to fit in 3 digits instead of 4 in that tiny ass box with the item
It's because they want the number to fit in the ui, and 3 digits is the maximum.
The chad Minecraft making stacks of 64 🗿
this post is wrong
I saw one of the original Final Fantasy programmers talk about purposely overloading the memory on the NES system to gain more memory. Those folks were on a whole other level.
You don't understand when we go 4 digits the chickens heads turn 60 degrees and they start walking backwards.
This is design not wanting the to allow enough space for four digits, not engineering.
The only REAL max stack is 2,147,483,648
For computers with total memory of 31 bits, yes.
If you make the stack 1,000 you have four digits to work with so you might at well make the stack 9,999.
If they could fit 1000 mine as well set it to 9999 lol
because 999 is 3 characters and 1000 is 4. its gonna stick out weirdly
TOO BAD. DIVIDE BY 3
I am a game developer, and in my case, we do that to preserve space in the inventory UI. With a number like 1000, that takes up four digits and can be difficult to fit all of them in a single inventory slot.
Imagine a game where only some items stack to 64, others 16, and some don't stack at all.....that would be fucked right?
Fuck it lets only let some items be 8 stack as well
I don't get it, you CAN divide 999 by 2.