From this point on, all arrays are reverse-indexed.
♾️-0 ♾️-1 …
Hey now, you know that according to the Bible the biggest number is a million. Anything larger than that including infinity is some of that “woke shit”.
Your array will be 999,999, 999,998, 999,997 …
GTFOH with that. 1-indexed arrays?! You monster.
(Mostly joking… Ok, somewhat joking :P )
Lua has entered the chat
Writing Lua code that also interacts with C code that uses 0 indexing is an awful experience. Annoys me to this day even though haven’t used it for 2 years
Lua had been banned from the chat
In Lua all arrays are just dictionaries with integer keys, a[0] will work just fine. It’s just that all built-in functions will expect arrays that start with index 1.
PHP did that same thing. It was a big problem when algorithmic complexity attacks were discovered. It took PHP years to integrate an effective solution that didn’t break everything.
Your argument isn’t making me any happier - it just fills me with more rage.
That’s slightly misleading, I think. There are no arrays in Lua, every Lua data structure is a table (sometimes pretending to be something else) and you can have anything as a key as long as it’s not nil. There’s also no integers, Lua only has a single number type which is floating point. This is perfectly valid:
local tbl = {} local f = function() error(":(") end tbl[tbl] = tbl tbl[f] = tbl tbl["tbl"] = tbl print(tbl) -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 print(tbl[tbl], tbl[f], tbl["tbl"]) -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 table: 0x557a907f0f40 table: 0x557a907f0f40 for key,value in pairs(tbl) do print(key, "=", value) end -- tbl = table: 0x557a907f0f40 -- function: 0x557a907edff0 = table: 0x557a907f0f40 -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 = table: 0x557a907f0f40 print(type(1), type(-0.5), type(math.pi), type(math.maxinteger)) -- number number number number
Don’t do my boy Lua dirty like that >:(
I always felt that Lua was a girl
Lua - Portuguese feminine noun for “moon”, coming from the Latin “luna”
Luna - Latin, feminine noun (coincidentally identical to the Italian noun, also feminine)Yup, Lua is a girl.
Luna is also same as the spanish noun, also feminine
Fortran angrily starts typing…
This is one of the few things that I really don’t like any Lua. It’s otherwise pretty decent and useful.
and MATLAB, Visual Basic (with
Option Base 1), and SQL.
How is arrays starting at 1 still a controversial take. Arrays should start at 1 and offsets at 0.
So what’s 0 do then? I’m okay with wacky indexes (I’ve used something with negative indexes for a end-index shorthand) but 0 has to mean something that’s actually useful. Using the index as the offset into the array seems to be the most useful way to index them.
I’d say the index is actually an offset is a reasoning for explaining why it should start at 1. If index was an index, I’d just start at 1.
I don’t think any one is better than the other, but history chose 0.
That you can choose it in VB is probably the worst option :D
Arrays are address offsets.
Not in languages where you don’t manually handle memory, such as PHP, SQL, Python… Higher-level languages using 0-indexed arrays are letting the abstraction leak.
I can’t believe an objectively true claim gets downvoted.
Visual Basic used to let you choose if you wanted to start arrays at 0 or 1. It was an app-wide setting, so that was fun.
I’ve not heard that name in a long time…
It’s how I got into programming, so I’ll always have a soft spot for it. Now it’s over 20 years later and I’m still coding.
Apple Basic (on an Apple IIe) was my first language that I recall.
Didn’t have a computer powerful enough for VB until later. It does have a special place in my nostalgia zone but has also led so many astray.
He’s got to be in contact with the CEO of my company, this is trade secret theft if not…
NGL, this kind of form of putting the decisions the monkey-in-charge is making in a way experts in a field will understand, is a very good way to showcase the absurdity.
Are there really people capable of understanding this who aren’t capable of understanding, for example, “tariffs increase inflation”?
Git default branch renamed back from main to master
Would be the most sane thing he’s ever done.
(Someone else made it but I can’t find the source)That shit was INCREDIBLY dumb
It comes from the old records industry.
Also, guys, let me rush to my university to tell them they’re extremely racist to enroll me in a “Master’s” program.in fucking Iran.
and all the others start with “slave/”
Merge me senpai
That one actually seems plausible, if he ever learns about that whole thing
Haven’t heard of the stack address thing, anyone got a TLDR on the topic?
Dynamic stacks are pretty common in the most popular scripting languages, but considered bad practice from folks who use systems languages
TL;DR: For historical reasons stacks growing down is defined in hardware on some CPUs (notably x86). On other CPUs like some ARM chips for example you (or more likely your compiler’s developer) can technically choose which direction stacks go but not conforming to the historical standard is the choice of a madman.
Pretty sure that it’s something a long the lines of “stack begins high, grows down, while heap behind low grows high” when they meet, it’s a stack overflow
They don’t have to meet, the max stack size is defined at compile time
I started reading that from the top and got increasingly angry on the way down. That creature is a monster.
removed by mod
Yeah…this one is sadly on brand
Sadly? Master branch never implied the existence of a slave branch. It was one of the dumbest pieces of woke incursion into tech.
Yeah agreed. Just another piece of white devs acting like they knew better for everyone.
Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.
That’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.
Not according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.
Well, he doesn’t seem so sure about it himself. From the same link:
(But as noted in a separate thread, it is possible it stems from bitkeeper’s master/slave terminology. I hoped to do some historical research but health emergency in my family delayed that.)
He also said:
the impression words form in the reader is more important than their intent
He didn’t intend for the master/slave connotation. He intended for the recording master connotation. Either way, he regrets using the word master and he’s supportive of the change.
In alignment with this, we should not replace the master branch with the main branch, we should replace it with the gold branch.
Every time a PR gets approval and it’s time to merge, I could declare that the code has “gone gold” and I am not doing that right now!
Merged -> gone gold
Deployed -> gone platinum
Gone a week without crashing production -> triple platinum
But why even? There’s no risk to changing it and some risk to keeping it. That’s the reason for the push to change it. Keeping something just because it’s tradition isn’t a good idea outside ceremonies.
There is definitely a risk in changing it. Many automation systems that assume there is a master branch needed to be changed. Something that’s trivial yes but changing a perfectly running system is always a potential risk.
Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.
If they can’t change what’s essentially a variable name without issues then should they be doing the job?
In assessing risk assume everyone is a bumbling idiot. For we all have moments of great stupidity.
pray tell me how would you change the name in every script of an automation system that refers to master? Remember, you have to justify the time and cost to your manager or director!
It’s the principle of letting uneducated people dictate what words are acceptable to us
What makes you think they’re uneducated?
letting uneducated people
More like overeducated people
overeducated people who can’t see that “master” has multiple meanings.
It’s like when you write a regex for a specific case, that then gets applied everywhere.
Why can you get a Master in Decolonization Studies at a university?
I don’t accept that because everyone’s doing it or “group-think” are valid excuses do jump on a trend. Things like this maybe don’t seem like a big deal for you but for those that hate this culture it’s just one more example of a dumb change being shoved down their throats. This could also be the straw that breaks the camels back.
They have a reason. You just don’t like it.
They do, and you’re right. Morality policing and prigs are not my thing.
It was kind of pointless, but at least it made software work with custom default branches.
For this political correctness you get trunk.
didn’t know donny was a forth programmer
Halfway to Lua lol
Error handling should only be with “if”
Variable names must be generic and similar to each-other
Debugging is only done with prints
Version numbers must be incoherent, hard to order correctly, contain letters and jump in ways that don’t align with the updates done.
Variable names should be var{n} where n = 0, 1, 2…
Something something the cruelty is the point.
Pff, just use the numbers directly:
${1} = "value"; ${2} = "DOGE";That makes it possible to do stuff like:
for (${152} = 1; ${152} <= 2; ${152}++) { ${666} = $${152}; print(${666}); }This is a valid code, btw.
Single letters or UTF8 symbols only. Emojis are encouraged.
What about stacks grows to higher addresses?
Im unfamiliar with this as well. If you are allocating memory for a stack, why does it matter which direction it populates data? Is this just a convention?
I asked deepseek: Downward-growing stacks** are more common in many architectures (e.g., x86, ARM). This convention originated from early computer architectures and has been carried forward for consistency.
Funny, I can’t remember, because I did a lot of assembler.
Ah thank you so its just a convention.
Arrays not starting at 1 bother me. I think the entrenched 0-based index is more important than any major push to use 1 instead, but if I could go back in time and change it I would.
It really doesn’t make sense to start at 1 as the value is really the distance from the start and would screw up other parts of indexing and counters.
It would screw up existing code but doing [array.length() -1] is pretty stupid.
A lot of languages have a
.last()or negative indexer ([-1]) to get the last item though.For i = 0; I < array.length; i++
Casually throws in capitals as well.
My post is a work of fiction
i < array.lengthor else you overflow.
It doesn’t make sense that the fourth element is element number 3 either.
Ultimately it’s just about you being used to it.
Yeah, but if we went back and time and changed it then there wouldn’t be other stuff relying on it being 0-based.
It was not randomly decided. Even before arrays as a language concept existed, you would just store objects in continuous memory.
To access you would do $addr+0, $addr+1 etc. The index had to be zero-based or you would simply waste the first address.
Then in languages like C that just got a little bit of syntactic sugar where the ‘[]’ operator is a shorthand for that offset. An array is still just a memory address (i.e. a pointer).
I know. But in the alternate reality where we’d been using 1-based indices forever you’d be telling me how useful it is that the first element is “1” instead of zero and I’d be saying there are some benefits to using zero based index because it’s more like an offset than an index.
A lot of mathematical languages start from 1: R, Julia, Mathematica (and also Lua and Fish).
I don’t know why, but in, e.g. R, it doesn’t bother me, I get caught by it in Lua all the time.
I suppose it’s a function of how far the array is abstracted from being pointers to an address that makes it easier to mentally switch.
Also remove null reference
this is what messed me up with ZSH for a bit, having a shell default to 1 instead of 0 was weird
Rare zshell L
Main branches will be renamed Master
Nope Main branches will be renamed Daddy
More like Grandwizard
Elon Musk will fund the development of KKK++, a programming language that will bring us back to the good old times before “GOTOs considered harmful” dropped, because real programmers not only do away with memory safety, but structured programming too.
MAGA - Make Assembly Great Again
