“Dijkstra is Wrong and So am I” – an argument against 0-based arrays
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: “Dijkstra is Wrong and So am I” – an argument against 0-based arrays
#2
Re: “Dijkstra is Wrong and So am I” – an argument against 0-based arrays
#3Dijkstra is right and so were you once.
0 or 1 based arrays is not a fundamental issue. It's more like little endian vs little endian. It's marginally better if everyone settles for one indexing.
In a good high level language and programming style you rarely need to think in indexes. In a low level language 0-indexing is better.
Re: “Dijkstra is Wrong and So am I” – an argument against 0-based arrays
#4In low-level languages, an index is literally a pointer offset. p[n] is *(p+n), and 0 makes sense. In higher-level languages, it's a less direct dereference that may or may not be directly mapped in a similar fashion.
Since there's a real basis for 0-indexing and none for 1-indexing, obviously 0 is right.
Re: “Dijkstra is Wrong and So am I” – an argument against 0-based arrays
#5https://i.imgur.com/CMk6jZY.jpg
This is the right answer, In addition I think a CS degree teaches you to how to write algorithms and work experience teaches you to not. And modern practice teaches you to avoid monkeying with array indexes when possible.
Re: “Dijkstra is Wrong and So am I” – an argument against 0-based arrays
#6Those who do not understand Dijkstra are doomed to revinvent him.
There are plausible, though inferior, arguments for 1-based arrays. This person doesn't even manage to make them, though.