[Discussion] 0 indexing -vs- 1 indexing
Discuss: Which is superior and why. Go go go go go
2
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-05 23:04
0 indexing is superior, reported. MrVacBob, please, listen to my prayers.
3
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-05 23:09
MrVacBob, please, listen to MY ANUS
4
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-05 23:21
5
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-05 23:21
Why would anyone in their right mind start counting from 1?
6
Name:
Nambla_dot_org_rules_you
2011-04-05 23:26
Only a fag or an autist would start counting from one.
7
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-05 23:55
>>5
Because they use Lua.
8
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 0:07
Only a retard would start counting from one. An autist is someone well-versed in the dark arts of programming, and therefore will know that 0-based indexing is the right way of indexing MY ANUS
9
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 0:08
Zero indexing is how actual computers work and is more efficient. Therefore, zero indexing or hit the highway.
10
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 0:11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero
Around 53% of people should be harvested for organs.
11
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 1:06
12
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 1:27
Smalltalk 1-based
13
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 1:42
car and cdr , first and rest , head and tail , T getContentOfFirstPositionOfIndexableObject(Indexable<T> indexableObject) and IndexableObject<T> getIndexableObjectFromTailOfIndexableObject(Indexable<T> IndexableObject)
14
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 4:38
15
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 11:26
>>11
Looks like all the
ancient languages (COBOL, Lua, Smalltalk, Fortran, P/L1, Matlab, etc), are all 1 based.
What's it all mean Doctor
Sussman ??
16
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 12:07
>>15
That you should use lists.
17
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 13:07
18
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 15:10
>>16
That you should use
lisps
19
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 15:21
LISPERS GONNA LISP
20
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 17:55
JEWS GONNA JEW
21
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 19:33
>>10
That was an unexpectedly amusing article.
22
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 19:35
23
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 19:53
Zero is a mathematical buzzword. There is no zero in reality. No emptiness. No mathematical space.
24
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 19:54
25
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 20:00
>>24
...and no "empty set".
26
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 20:06
From a practical side, indexing from `1` is supperior, because you can use negative indexes to index list from end.(nth -1 '(a b c)) (nth 1 '(1 2 3))
27
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 20:30
>>26
(nth 1 '(1 a
IHBT.
28
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 21:03
29
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 21:09
>>26
You can anyway:
>>> [1,2,3][0]
The index at -1 is also the index length - 1, so it makes sense. Also,
>>9 .
30
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 21:10
>>29
But now it's asymmetric. You can't just negate index to invert order.
31
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 21:12
>>30
My point: `zero` is an error code, not a number. Just like infinity and infinitesimals. You can perfectly replace 0 with NIL, and will work the same.
32
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 21:16
>>31
0 is a number.
[spoiler] nan[\spoiler] is not a number.
33
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 21:18
HOLY FUCK my BB CODE has gone down in power in the last couple years. Feels bad man.
34
Name:
Anonymous
2011-04-06 21:19
35
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 21:21
>>32
NaN
36
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 22:42
GNU's not UNIX
37
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 22:53
NaN
38
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 22:53
NaN a NaN
39
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 22:54
NaN a NaN a NaN a NaN
40
Name:
Anonymous 2011-04-06 22:54
NaN a NaN a NaN a NaN a NaN a NaN a NaN a NaN
Newer Posts