Wouldn’t it be nice if documentation used the words index and offset consistently?
Aren’t those two the same thing? At least in C-style arrays, which might not be how they’re handled under the hood, but is at least how most languages present it to the programmer.
Yes they are presented in the programmer wrong. The first thing in memory should have offset 0 and index 1
in my understanding offset is technically the “relative index”, or how much you have to go further
The problem is that they both are contextual and can mean any position in a list/array. The starting index or starting offset is generally zero, but could be one, depending on the language used.
i wonder why people haven’t made a language that starts indexing at 2 yet. maybe some day
Maybe this could be a feature in brainfuck or COBOL.
god i hope so
Dreamberd starts array indexing at -1 instead of 0 or 1.
what a beautiful language
Even if the table is correct the instruction needs to be more precise. Is it table header or table body and in which table column?
I still mess this up for lists in Python…
If you love me meet me at first floor
Americans 😢 British 🤷♂️
explanation
Exactly what this reminded me of. Thanks.
The Major: “Fighting retreat at first light”
Me alone in the trench the morning after next, woken by German voices: “Oh no!”
I work with juniper switches 0 is my 1
Fuck juniper fr though
Don’t wanna state the obvious, but it looks like they still ended up staring at each other for the rest of the evening.
They have shown that they still love each other, so hope they can work with their one irreconcilable difference.
I love the idea that they’re at two adjacent tables, each one staring at the other wondering why they hate them.
They hate each other because they are intolerant to one another’s index choices
No, NO! She said the FIRST table. Not table ONE. Why are women like this??? /s
🙅 zeroth, first, second, third
👉 Zerost, onest, twost, threestI’m the twost two that’s ever twoed.
Good luck standardizing English
Englist*
Northern England just got a new nickname.
Plot twist, neither cared about the table number
One went to the first table produced, the other to the first table placed
1st table is not equal to table 01 because there no 0st table
0th (only first gets the -st ending; only second gets its end)
I love how they’re looking at each other
God yes, you can clearly see from the background scene that while at different tables they can clearly see each other. All this bickering is madness
And then he texts back ‘where are you?’ And then she texts back ‘the first table’ and he replies ‘umm I’m here too. But I don’t see you’ confused she asks him ’ table 0p?’ And then ‘01*?’ He says ‘no, 00.’ Releaved she says ‘lol I am at table 01’ he chuckles ‘I am at 00, I’ll go find you’
Later they get married and have kids. But relationship collapses and it ruins both of them and they cannot find the heart to love anyone again. Their children grow up broken and struggle through life. Some get arrested end up in prison, all of them repeatedly fall into a series of toxic relationships for the rest of their lives.
Or… or… hear me out… one of them turns around on their chair, and says “hey there”.
They were at the corner
username checks out
Why the fuck would you spell it “1st” if it’s not 1?
Edit: Which is not pronounced “onest”. I think people might be missing the point here; I’m actually a fan of zero indexing.
Interestingly, we’ve got the same glitch in the Gregorian calendar, where the year 0 doesn’t exist. So the 21st century started in 2001…
Yup. We should really zero-index century names and years AD/BC as well, but we don’t. If we were still using Roman numerals it would be no big deal, but we rarely do, so there’s a confusing clash. I’m not sure if it was this programming humour community or another where I had a big exchange on the topic before.
I suppose you could have some kind of positional system that’s one-indexed, so 999AD = 1111999AD, and 2000 would be written 2111, but you’d have to completely redo the way arithmetic works, and that defeats the point a bit. And, the new 999 would not be our 999, because it’s effectively base 9.
I feel like the joke would’ve landed better if it said “first”. I know it’s pronounced the same way, but I’m gonna argue anyway that there’s a subtle difference. I’ve heard 0th used in cs to describe what was at the 0-index, so in that context 1st would be"second", but “first” generally means “nothing before it”. English is weird. I wonder if anyone knows whether the word “first” or “1st” came 1st (lol)?
Ordinal vs. cardinal. It’s “first” not “onest”, right? Even the ancient proto-Germanic speakers could tell there’s a difference. (In fact, it’s basically a contraction of “foremost”, and has nothing to do with numbers; their weak numeracy was an advantage on this topic)
If we weren’t implicitly choosing 1-indexing it would be 1nd for “second” (and still not “onend” or something). That breaks down once you get to third and fourth, though.
programmer linguistigs is certainly something to behold.
Fun fact, Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories were and are the foundation of parsing.
They said 1st as an abbreviation of first (it’s a normal abbreviation 1st, 2nd, 3rd … 7th abbreviate first, second, third … seventh)
Sure, but you have to see how it’s an own goal if you’re showing up to table 0.
The real punch line is that in a cafe run by programmers, esoteric rules are in full force, but tables 0 and 1 are no where near each other.
This would work better as Nth floor of a building
