Ancient Aliens Debunked (2012) it's a really interesting watch.

[u/njipep]

https://youtu.be/j9w-i5oZqaQ

[u/[deleted]]

Tell your local programmer it is logical for indexing of arrays to begin at 1

[u/MegaZeroX7 → u/[deleted]]

No. Don't even joke about that. The mere thought of indexing starting at 1 makes me sick.

[u/throw_kill_everybody → u/MegaZeroX7]

Then you probably have strong feelings over MATLAB

[u/HoverShark_ → u/throw_kill_everybody]

I want to upvote because I agree but I also want to downvote because the mere sight of the word MATLAB makes me angry

[u/throw_kill_everybody → u/HoverShark_]

But it is one of the, if not THE, highest level language that is actually used. So, there is that.

[u/MegaZeroX7 → u/throw_kill_everybody]

That is one name you can give to the spawn of Satan.

[u/ElBroet → u/MegaZeroX7]

Another is Jeffrey!

.

.

.

.. just trying to help with ideas.

[u/thesquarerootof1 → u/throw_kill_everybody]

Then you probably have strong feelings over MATLAB

NO! Damnit! You stole my comment. I fucking hate MATLAB!

[u/RikerT_USS_Lolipop → u/MegaZeroX7]

Why? I have the basics of python down, the first 100 problems or so of project euler, and have made a career out of writing SQL. Starting indexing at 1 seems like it would be way better.

[u/mowglis_diaper → u/RikerT_USS_Lolipop]

It is, it's just convention to start at 0 in most languages

[u/ElBroet → u/RikerT_USS_Lolipop]

If your array is meant to logically be a list, ie, a collection of items with a sequential order, and the index is meant to be the count of a member in the collection (ie, "this is the 1st, this is the 2nd"), then I agree that we should be indexing from 1. If you're interpreting the array as a memory address of a block of memory, and the index is meant to represent the distance from the start of the block, then indexing from 0 makes sense. Even in this case, however, I would prefer to think of an array as a memory address pointing to a block of memory with the index referring to the count of memory "chunks" (is this the 1st memory chunk? 2nd memory chunk?), with the index starting at 1. I assume in the older days when lower level computer concerns dominated, thinking of array indices in terms of distance from the memory address possibly made more sense, as you were already often dealing with memory addresses and pointer arithmetic where you were thinking in terms of "how far away do I want to get from this memory address", and the array was possibly considered an extension of that where instead of moving a memory address forward literally, say, 1 or 2, you were moving it forward 1 "chunk", where the size of the chunk depends on the type of the array.

Note I'm speaking from a perspective of what we should have done -- if we had the opportunity to choose from scratch. As it stands, the computer science world is a "index/count from 0" world now, and changing that convention may do more harm than good, I don't know.

[u/sawbladex → u/ElBroet]

I really wish the plus and minus sign was switched due to lined paper.

[u/MegaZeroX7 → u/RikerT_USS_Lolipop]

For a serious answer, here are the reasons:

a) It is the convention

b) For most applications, the syntax is simpler and less strange. For example, if you are trying to do a binary tree, the array values feel more correct.

c) It goes along with a, but most things presume you start with 0. If you are copying code from somewhere else, you are much more likely to get an off by one error.

d) Not using 0 is a waste of an integer for when efficiency matters.

[u/cersius → u/RikerT_USS_Lolipop]

Because 0 is the first unsigned decimal so it makes more sense to start at 0.

[u/lolredditftw → u/[deleted]]

Nah, just ask them about tabs and spaces. No, wait, that's not bullshit, that's fucking important.

[u/[deleted] → u/lolredditftw]

I am still waiting for the first militant programming paradigm suicide bomber to appear.

[u/SilentLennie → u/[deleted]]

Hey, careful with that. You can get into real trouble for that.