1-based indexing is retarded.

1-based indexing is moronic. The empirical proof of it is the fact that when you iterate over an array or a matrix and do calculations that depend on the current element's position, needing to adjust your indices by 1 for the purpose of the calculation is rare with 0-based indices but common with 1-based indices. More often than not, the calculations associated with the current element depend on how many elements you have already iterated over, which happens to be 0 for the first element.

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I know anon, I wasn't the monkey who designed Lua

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I wasn't the monkey who designed Lua
      >Lua
      Yep. Good guess. You can blame that guy for this thread. No one else ever thought it was a good idea except for irrelevant academics.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No one else ever thought it was a good idea except for irrelevant academics.
        Everyone before the "homosexual efforts to create a programming new world order" used 1-based arrays.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Fortran? More like for-trans.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >join nascar
    >win race
    >get trophy
    >"zero"
    yeah, nah

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Real sigmas know winning isn't about conventional ranks; it's about making sure 0 (zero) people get to be finish line before you do.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      0 trophy is perfect for Nascar. Quite symbolic.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Swarthoid devshitters and jeet webshitters out themselves instantly as being nonwhite as they have never bothered looking into how a computer actually works, specifically combinational and sequential circuits. Where do you think the first forms of ISA and addressing came from? Why the frick would you waste a state and not start at 0 all because uhhh humans start at 1 (also not true).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >waste a state
      Low-IQ post, as expected from any post using the term "nonwhite" unironically.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        if you skip 0x00 (all gates are 0) you waste state, dumb Black person.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Your wank has had nothing to do with anything ever since compilers and higher level programming languages were invented.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >uhhh abstraction just le heckin abstract and encapsulate
            Textbook devshitter argument, swarthy ape. My entire point was that devshitters pretend that 0th index is entirely arbitrary or still has no reason to be used. The fact that you also did not understand the OP outs you twice as to being a moronic Black person.

            You can't pretend that computers don't work the way they do and there is zero good reason to virtually offset an array or any data because your webshitter brain cannot cope with a discrete numbering system that starts at 0 (also how human base 10 counting works you fricking moron). Of course a disgusting Euroid thinks fundamental core ideas are deprecated.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you also did not understand the OP
            I am OP, and I'm just telling you that nothing is "wasted" by 1-based indexing because compilers exist and the indices are trivial to remap. Seethe more, white trash.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >le modern compiler
            Again, classic devjeeter argument. I never said the compiler wastes space by starting at 0 I said every devshitter doesn't understand the actual reason why the 0th index was a thing, reading comprehension moment. If, in my specific example that you clearly did not read, where the first ISA and addressing schemes ALL come from you started at 0x01 you waste 0x00.
            >inb4 well that's just le heckin unwholesome and BAD because it JUST IS OK
            Le modern compiler should also just do everything for you so you save more heckin time doing what is important making sure that the API call to your data base works!

            Swarthoids should not be allowed to touch computers without a computer architecture comprehension test.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The thread isn't about why it "was" a thing, it's about why it is a thing. Seethe more, white trash.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because the index isn't a cardinal number, poopskin. You can devshit your way into remapping the address so that your small brain can cope with what essentially no one else really has a problem with. Fundamentally it's an offset and not the cardinality of the element, but you probably have never formally studied anything outside of some jeet bootcamp.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Didn't read. You have a raging mental illness, anon. You will demonstrate this by replying again, even though no one is going to read your next post.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >seethe post
            >if you reply u r actually the angry dumb one
            Back pedal and seethe more, low iq brownoid

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the first ISA and addressing schemes ALL come from you started at 0x01
            you morons speak as if hardware was the result of holy decree that humans have no control over. they could have started it from 0x00, 0x01, Black folkTONGUEMYANUS88 or whatever the frick, because they invented it in the first place

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >uhhh abstraction just le heckin abstract and encapsulate
      Textbook devshitter argument, swarthy ape. My entire point was that devshitters pretend that 0th index is entirely arbitrary or still has no reason to be used. The fact that you also did not understand the OP outs you twice as to being a moronic Black person.

      You can't pretend that computers don't work the way they do and there is zero good reason to virtually offset an array or any data because your webshitter brain cannot cope with a discrete numbering system that starts at 0 (also how human base 10 counting works you fricking moron). Of course a disgusting Euroid thinks fundamental core ideas are deprecated.

      You're angry all the time because you use 0-based arrays. The mismatch between how humans work and how you think computers work is too great for your brain to handle.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >human counting also starts at 0 you are being filtered and cannot cope with formal discrete measurements
        >>n..no-u!! Actually YOU r dumb
        did you not read the OP at all?

        imagine being filtered by fricking arrays devshitter euroid. Do you also struggle with graphs or trees?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The first high-level language used one-based indexing.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >what is the index of the first item in this array in memory
    >stored usually as an integer
    >first value of an integer is 0b000000...000 depending on endianness
    >in decimal, fricking zero

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Then some morons itt:
      >uhhh just add one because I can't fathom zero
      >I constantly need there to be SOMETHING

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Careful, devjeeters are already filtered by hex to begin with.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >needing to adjust your indices by 1
    You also need to adjust your length by 1 when using 0-based indices.
    Don't be a preachy midwit, there will never be one type of indexing that covers both the elements iterated so far and the ordinal number of the current element without adjustments.
    You autistic Black folk are trying to reconcile both the fences and the spaces as if they were not fundamentally different things. Off-by-one errors will happen no matter what the index is, and picking 0 because muh memory offset is equally as (il)logical as picking 1 because muh humans.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >there will never be one type of indexing that covers both the elements iterated so far and the ordinal number of the current element without adjustments.
      Right, and my point is that most of the time you need the former rather than the latter, in case you didn't understand my post. This is not "preaching", it's an empirical observation.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >most of the time you need the former rather than the latter
        yeah that's why high level languages have foreach loops that almost never use the index at all
        moron

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >high level languages have foreach loops
          Ok, and? You use that when you don't need the index at all. What does it have to do with the subject matter? IQfy is unironically the lowest IQ board on the site.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You also need to adjust your length by 1 when using 0-based indices.
      No, you don't. The length is the length and you iterate from the first index to the last one way or another.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fortran still mogs every index language for high performance compute
    Sorry indexing trannies
    Keep seething, nothing will change it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Fortran still mogs every index language for high performance compute
      But that's the only reason anyone still uses it. No one writes Fortran because it's fun to write programs in.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >First semester CS undergrads
    Sounds like projection. I'm just venting after a day of doing actual work, which that happens to involve Lua lately.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Actual work
    >Lua

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's not even me, I don't touch jeet languages I write embedded for FPGA's where you actually have to know what the frick you are doing and how the frick something works because there is basically 0 handholding.

      Enjoy your webjeet apps with the first index of your array at 1 because you are simply too dumb to understand how memory and memory offset works. I'm sure pointers are hard too why can't the pointer just be the data itself, vectorized data is also just simply too complex everything should be monolithic struct.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I know what a pointer is please be impressed
        An array is a data structure. It can start at whatever index you want because it's an abstract concept. There is no part of your computer's hardware that knows what the hell an "array" is. Stop being moronic.
        >Enjoy your webjeet apps with the first index of your array at 1
        JavaScript and all other "webjeet" languages use zero-indexing for arrays. The more you speak the more you show how ignorant you are. I would recommend you stop.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >More often than not, the calculations associated with the current element depend on how many elements you have already iterated over, which happens to be 0 for the first element.
    nope coped. ive used both, 1 requires less +1 bullshit. Final index? it's the length. need to do that in 0 based system and its length - 1. cope harder. its 0 because of cniles

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT morons who don't understand the difference between an index and an offset

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Examples?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *