Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do arrays start at 0?

buttondown.email

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 702 posts

Re: Why do arrays start at 0?

#91

Post by dylan604 »

themacks wrote: post #49
randomdata wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment you are born you are 0 years old (or perhaps 0.75 years old, but we don't usually recognize that). We count from zero in this case, at least implicitly. In some cultures you are considered 1 the moment you are born, so the zero indexing isn't universal here, but typical in North America as noted earlier.

Typical counting of things starts from 0. If you count apples you implicitly start at zero and add 1 for each apple. If you count age, you start at birth (0) and count years; one for each birthday. That isn't zero based. The difference is the index of the item between the starting point and the next item. In zero based this item is number 0, in one based, this item is number 1. The first year of life is generally con…

>If you count age, you start at birth (0) and count years; one for each birthday.

nitpick: unless you were born on Feb 29.

Re: Why do arrays start at 0?

#93

Post by dividuum »

Stratoscope wrote: post #85
randomdata wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when we count, we start at 1, we talk about the "1st" Although often with an implicit zero. Under typical North American culture, your 1st birthday, for example, is more accurately the first anniversary of your birthday. Your birth is zero indexed.

Rulers too. A ruler starts at 0, not 1.

Not all of them do: https://twitter.com/blinry/status/1550920690529968128 %)

Re: Why do arrays start at 0?

#94

Post by lupire »

numlock86 wrote: post #35
hougaard wrote: post #14

It really comes down to a choice between a machine-focused (0) or human-focused (1) approach. The 0 makes a lot of sense in a C pointer world where memcpy and other alike functions can be written very thight. The 1 makes a lot of sense in a human world, when we count, we start at 1, we talk about the "1st", counting on finger starts with 1, etc. I once were at a Lua (1 indexed language) conference where this was disc…

> It really comes down to a choice between a machine-focused (0) or human-focused (1) approach. Just think of 0-based as offset-based and 1-based as index-based. Both are intuitive just like that. I never get why people arguing over this bring pointers and memory (or anything computer related) to the table. No normal person is going to understand that, but everyone understands that if you don't move at all (0 offset)…

"ordinal" is preferred to "index", as "index" doesn't naturally suggest starting at "1", or even restricting the key to integers. "Ordinal" starts from 1, everyone agrees (except mathematicians, of course :-) ).

Re: Why do arrays start at 0?

#95

Post by yongjik »

randomdata wrote: post #19
hougaard wrote: post #14

It really comes down to a choice between a machine-focused (0) or human-focused (1) approach. The 0 makes a lot of sense in a C pointer world where memcpy and other alike functions can be written very thight. The 1 makes a lot of sense in a human world, when we count, we start at 1, we talk about the "1st", counting on finger starts with 1, etc. I once were at a Lua (1 indexed language) conference where this was disc…

> when we count, we start at 1, we talk about the "1st" Although often with an implicit zero. Under typical North American culture, your 1st birthday, for example, is more accurately the first anniversary of your birthday. Your birth is zero indexed.

That's why I prefer the Superior(TM) Korean age counting. You are one year old when you're born (it's your first year!). You are two year old on the next New Year's day. (Congratulations, it's your second your now!)

So, if you're born on December 31st, you're two years old the next day. (I see no problem, but apparently some people are hung up on such minor details. I can't fathom why.)

Re: Why do arrays start at 0?

#96

Post by msdrigg »

twanvl wrote: post #45

Other advantages of zero based indexing, beyond being 'closer to the machine': It works better with the modulo operator: `array[i%length]` vs `array[(i+length-1)%length+1]`. Or you would have to define a modulo-like operator that maps ℕ to [1..n]. It works better if you have a multi-dimensional index, for example the pixels in an image. With 0 based indexing, pixel `(x,y)` is at `array[x+width y]`. With 1 based index…

This is the reason I always think of when I hear the question

Re: Why do arrays start at 0?

#97

Post by pb7 »

lupire wrote: post #94
numlock86 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It really comes down to a choice between a machine-focused (0) or human-focused (1) approach. Just think of 0-based as offset-based and 1-based as index-based. Both are intuitive just like that. I never get why people arguing over this bring pointers and memory (or anything computer related) to the table. No normal person is going to understand that, but everyone understands that if you don't move at all (0 offset)…

"ordinal" is preferred to "index", as "index" doesn't naturally suggest starting at "1", or even restricting the key to integers. "Ordinal" starts from 1, everyone agrees (except mathematicians, of course :-) ).

Ask 100 random people on the street and I'd be surprised if even 1 knew the definition of "ordinal". It's an uncommon word.

Re: Why do arrays start at 0?

#98

Post by bentcorner »

hougaard wrote: post #14

It really comes down to a choice between a machine-focused (0) or human-focused (1) approach. The 0 makes a lot of sense in a C pointer world where memcpy and other alike functions can be written very thight. The 1 makes a lot of sense in a human world, when we count, we start at 1, we talk about the "1st", counting on finger starts with 1, etc. I once were at a Lua (1 indexed language) conference where this was disc…

> The 1 makes a lot of sense in a human world, when we count, we start at 1

As a kid I learned "one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand" when counting time out loud, but at some point I realized this was incorrect. The prefix is the start of the nth second but it isn't complete yet, so for example stopping in the middle of saying "two one-thousand" you actually haven't reached two seconds yet.

My fix was to move the prefix to the end, so I say "one-thousand one, one-thousand two, one-thousand three".

In retrospect maybe I should have used "zero one-thousand, one one-thousand, two one-thousand".

Re: Why do arrays start at 0?

#100

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

hougaard wrote: post #14

It really comes down to a choice between a machine-focused (0) or human-focused (1) approach. The 0 makes a lot of sense in a C pointer world where memcpy and other alike functions can be written very thight. The 1 makes a lot of sense in a human world, when we count, we start at 1, we talk about the "1st", counting on finger starts with 1, etc. I once were at a Lua (1 indexed language) conference where this was disc…

Yes, but "human-focused" 1-based indexing comes at a cost since at the end of the day the CPU has to add (index * element-size) to the array base address to get the address of the indexed element. With a 1-based index there's additional overhead in either having to subtract 1 from the index or to have a wasted "element 0" to avoid the need to do that.
Post reply on HN