News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by tcoff91 on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @03:28AM (#43264224)
No, zero based indexing just is based on how arrays actually work. It has nothing to do with resources being scarce. You have an address for the beginning of the array and an offset. The first element has no offset so you use zero. Therefore you naturally end up with zero indexing.
Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by aqueueaqueue on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @03:32AM (#43264257)
Yeah but why wasn't that converted to human 1 based indexing at the machine code level or assembly in early machines?

Maybe because they didn't want to "hide the bicycle gears"?

Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by IshKebab on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @04:10AM (#43264520)
No, it's because it doesn't make any sense to do that. It would add a ton of complexity for no benefit.
Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by robertlagrant on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @05:51AM (#43265106)
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.
Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by IshKebab on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @09:13AM (#43266636)
Indexing/addressing is not counting though. Look at a ruler. It doesn't start at 1.
Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by robertlagrant on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @09:49AM (#43267199)
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.
Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by IshKebab on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @12:50PM (#43269867)
> 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.

Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by robertlagrant on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @02:54PM (#43271450)
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 by IshKebab on Thursday March 06, 2025 @03:07PM (#43284574)
> 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 by robertlagrant on Monday March 10, 2025 @08:57AM (#43320102)
> 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.

Re:The Nightmare Bicycle by aqueueaqueue on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @03:53PM (#43272221)
Thanks that made it click.

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