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

The Nightmare Bicycle

geoffreylitt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: The Nightmare Bicycle

#71

Post by robertlagrant »

IshKebab wrote: post #70
robertlagrant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, indeed. But when indexing to an element in an array you aren't measuring from a zero (well, in memory you are, but not conceptually). You're conceptually pointing at an apple.

> But when indexing to an element in an array you aren't measuring from a zero (well, in memory you are, but not conceptually). Yes you are!! In memory, and conceptually. You're conceptually moving your finger 0 spaces from the start of the apple array.

I think maybe it's just hard to unlearn the offset mentality. Of course you can convert a direct index mentality to an offset mentality, but I don't think anyone is pointing at the first item in a row of items and thinking "that's a zero offset from the start of the number of items". They're thinking, "That's item number 1".

Re: The Nightmare Bicycle

#72

Post by aqueueaqueue »

IshKebab wrote: post #65
robertlagrant wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make some sense: if I have some apples, and I ask a child to count them, they'll address each one starting with the number 1, not the number 0.

Indexing/addressing is not counting though. Look at a ruler. It doesn't start at 1.

Thanks that made it click.

While I understand the CS concepts, I have never really thought about the developer UX before.

Re: The Nightmare Bicycle

#73

Post by neuralRiot »

jajko wrote: post #64
makeitdouble wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're in agreement. To me the two dial microwave is the single purpose tool. As a user I just happen to have very little kitchen space, so I ended up with a microwave/oven combination by necessity, and as it does exponentially a lot more than the two dial microwave, it also requires more complex modes and buttons and dials and I'm fine with it, as that's exactly why I paid for it. The "chicken" mode isn't som…

Man, most folks will never go through oven manual. Usually new oven means new kitchen, and more focus is ie on induction hob, fridge, dishwasher etvc. I am one of those that just wants simple clear stuff like a lot of people here mention. Whats more important is the consistency between various products - if I am used to a recipe that requires 15 mins at this setting and this temperature, let it be consistent across a…

I’m an avid home cook and one of the most temperamental tools in any kitchen is the oven, with the ranges, microwaves and broilers you can quickly get a sense of their character but with the oven and specially for baking you need a long term relationship.

Re: The Nightmare Bicycle

#74

Post by IshKebab »

robertlagrant wrote: post #71
IshKebab wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But when indexing to an element in an array you aren't measuring from a zero (well, in memory you are, but not conceptually). Yes you are!! In memory, and conceptually. You're conceptually moving your finger 0 spaces from the start of the apple array.

I think maybe it's just hard to unlearn the offset mentality. Of course you can convert a direct index mentality to an offset mentality, but I don't think anyone is pointing at the first item in a row of items and thinking "that's a zero offset from the start of the number of items". They're thinking, "That's item number 1".

> They're thinking, "That's item number 1".

Yeah that's because the distinction between indexing and counting is pretty much irrelevant to every day use, and to maths where you can just hand-wave syntax. So people are very used to doing it "wrong".

That's what most of the issue with this debate is. Indexing from 1 is wrong, but people are soooo used to it they just can't get over what they think is the "normal" way.

Re: The Nightmare Bicycle

#75

Post by robertlagrant »

IshKebab wrote: post #74
robertlagrant wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe it's just hard to unlearn the offset mentality. Of course you can convert a direct index mentality to an offset mentality, but I don't think anyone is pointing at the first item in a row of items and thinking "that's a zero offset from the start of the number of items". They're thinking, "That's item number 1".

> They're thinking, "That's item number 1". Yeah that's because the distinction between indexing and counting is pretty much irrelevant to every day use, and to maths where you can just hand-wave syntax. So people are very used to doing it "wrong". That's what most of the issue with this debate is. Indexing from 1 is wrong, but people are soooo used to it they just can't get over what they think is the "normal" way.

> Yeah that's because the distinction between indexing and counting is pretty much irrelevant to every day use

No it's not. Telling the time or measuring something is 0-indexed. But identifying a thing in a list is 1-indexed.

Post reply on HN