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

Numbering should start at zero (1982)

cs.utexas.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 309 posts

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#11

Post by myfonj »

I found it devastating that there are no distinct agreed-upon words denoting zero- and one-based addressing. Initially I thought that the word "index" clearly denotes zero-base, and for one-base there is "order", "position", "rank" or some other word, but after rather painful and humiliating research I stood corrected. ("Index" is really used in both meanings, and without prior knowledge of the context, there is really no way to tell what base it refers to.)

So to be clear, we have to tediously specify "z e r o - b a s e d " or "o n e - b a s e d" every single time to avoid confusion. (Is there a chance for creating some new, terser consensus here?)

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#13

Post by aero142 »

myfonj wrote: post #11

I found it devastating that there are no distinct agreed-upon words denoting zero- and one-based addressing. Initially I thought that the word "index" clearly denotes zero-base, and for one-base there is "order", "position", "rank" or some other word, but after rather painful and humiliating research I stood corrected. ("Index" is really used in both meanings, and without prior knowledge of the context, there is real…

I humbly submit '1ndex' and 'ind0x', or '1dx' and 'i0x'.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#14

Post by tetha »

roenxi wrote: post #3

The 1980s were not a particularly enlightened time for programming language design; and Dijkstra's opinions seem to carry extra weight mainly because his name has a certain shock and awe factor. It isn't usual for me to agree with the mathematical convention for notations, but the 1st element of a sequence being denoted with a "1" just seems obviously superior. I'm sure there is a culture that counts their first fing…

I've heard the statement "Let's just see if starting with 0 or 1 makes the equations and explanations prettier" quite a few times. For example, a sequence is easier to look at if a_0 has f applied 0 times, a_1 has f applied 1 time, and so on.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#15

Post by Rygian »

myfonj wrote: post #11

I found it devastating that there are no distinct agreed-upon words denoting zero- and one-based addressing. Initially I thought that the word "index" clearly denotes zero-base, and for one-base there is "order", "position", "rank" or some other word, but after rather painful and humiliating research I stood corrected. ("Index" is really used in both meanings, and without prior knowledge of the context, there is real…

I think that "zero-based" and "one-based" expressions are the distinct agreed-upon "words" and they are terse enough.

I can suggest "z8d" and "o7d" otherwise. (/jk)

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#16

Post by tmtvl »

sham1 wrote: post #6
roenxi wrote: post #3

The 1980s were not a particularly enlightened time for programming language design; and Dijkstra's opinions seem to carry extra weight mainly because his name has a certain shock and awe factor. It isn't usual for me to agree with the mathematical convention for notations, but the 1st element of a sequence being denoted with a "1" just seems obviously superior. I'm sure there is a culture that counts their first fing…

Zero-based counting works better with modular arithmetic. Like arr[(i++ % arr.length)] = foo; Is certainly nicer than the equivalent in one-based subscripting arr[(i++ % arr.length) + 1] = foo; (The above is actually wrong, which helps the idea) I'll concede that it's not all that significant as a difference, but at least IMO it's nicer. Also could argue that modular arithmetic and zero-based indexing makes more sens…

But on the other hand,

  last := vector[vector-length(vector)];
is nicer than

  last := vector[vector-length(vector) - 1];
so in the end I'd say 'de gustibus non est disputandum' and people who prefer 0-based indexing can use most languages and I can dream of my own.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#17

Post by kibwen »

I appreciate Dijkstra's arguments, but the fact remains that no non-technical user is ever going to jibe with a zero-indexed system, no matter the technical merits.

Languages aimed at casual audiences (e.g. scripting languages like Lua) should maybe just provide two different ways of indexing into arrays: an `offset` method that's zero-indexed, and an `item` method that's one-indexed. Let users pick, in a way that's mildly less confusing than languages that let you override the behavior of the indexing operator (an operator which really doesn't particularly need to exist in a world where iterators are commonplace).

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#18

Post by slightwinder »

barotalomey wrote: post #4

1 or 0-based index... I recently picked up Lua for a toy project and I got to say that decades of training with 0-based indexes makes it hard for me to write correct lua code on the first try. I suppose 1-based index is more logical, but decades of programming languages choosing 0-based index is hard to ignore.

I have a similar experience with pythons negative-indexing. In Python, you can access elements counting from the back by using negative numbers. But for this, they start with 1, not 0. Which is inconsistent, as they start for the normal forward indexing at 0. I guess it comes from reducing n.length-1 to -1, but it's still kinda annoying to have two different indexing-systems at work.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#19

Post by booleandilemma »

barotalomey wrote: post #4

1 or 0-based index... I recently picked up Lua for a toy project and I got to say that decades of training with 0-based indexes makes it hard for me to write correct lua code on the first try. I suppose 1-based index is more logical, but decades of programming languages choosing 0-based index is hard to ignore.

This was the thing that turned me off from Lua unfortunately.
Post reply on HN