6 ms·

The thing about 1 based indexing is that it's a kind of in your face "this is different" decision from the point of view of a programmers of most popular langua

The thing about 1 based indexing is that it's a kind of in your face "this is different" decision from the point of view of a programmers of most popular languages. To be honest I wouldn't want to start investing my time into a language where people who proposed 1 based indexing are making design decisions. It's not that I think they are incompetent but it's clear they care way more about some different world than about my programming world and are ready to make my life miserable stating the point. Now, I don't know if people from that different world (Fortran, Matlab, some other languages used in academia maybe) would feel the same way about 0 based indexing but it certainly sends the message to programmers outside those domains.

chappi42 10y ago
R and Mathematica are also 1 based. And R really is popular (http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=index http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=index - ok, popularity is droping right now, likely b/c of Julia ;-))
- c3534l 10y ago
  Julia seems like it's meant to be friendly to people who know MATLAB, Python, and R (even Fortran). R and Python are really comfortable with working with data science and that's what Julia is geared toward. I have no experience with MATLAB, though. Julia's programming "world" may indeed be a different programming world than C programmers. I'm not defending Julia per se. I've been patiently observing from the sidelines to see how the language shapes up.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- banku_brougham 10y ago
  R is ranked lower year-on-year, but if you click into the actual rating time series you can see that R is on a tear into new highs of popularity. For that matter so is MATLAB. Julia is still buried in the next 50 list. BTW i'm a julia proponent, I'm just starting into it but I like a lot about it.
- eternalban 10y ago
  So is Lua.
  - bdowling 10y ago
    Lua tables are more interesting than that. You can have an table that is indexed by any supported type. That means tables indexed by positive or negative integers, floating point values, references to other objects or other tables, true, false, strings, coroutines, and external memory references can all be indexes. You can also have a single table indexed by any combination of these.
    - eternalban 10y ago
      Isn't that technically a hashtable and not an array?
      - bdowling 10y ago
        In Lua the same data structure is used for both. The implementation optimizes the data structure like an array when you use a range of non-negative integers as indexes.
- nonbel 10y ago
  >"popularity is droping right now, likely b/c of Julia" I don't see how you concluded that? http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=R http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=R
dnautics 10y ago
You shouldn't be so biased. Having one based indexing makes translating numerical recipes from pure math textbooks (where vectors and matrices are generally one-based) simpler and less error prone. I say this as someone who chafes at Julia's one based indexing as a matter of professional practice.
- bluecalm 10y ago
  It's very error prone if you implemented algorithms using 0 based indexing your whole programming life. You are just bound to make mistakes if suddenly it's 1 based indexing. I am not saying 0 based indexing is technically superior (I really have no opinion on that). I could compare it to switching positions of brake and accelerator in a car - you can talk about brake on the right design being superior all you want but the fatal crashes will happen if you implement it.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Of course, zero-based indexing is prone to error if you've grown up using natural language ordinals your whole life, and get business requirements based in them both of which are stunningly common of real developers and real development tasks.
  - rrock 10y ago
    This is exactly why all of my off by one errors happen in zero-based indexing languages. I need 1-based languages for data analysis, and 0-based languages for working on instrumentation.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    0-based indexing is technically superior, because it makes offsets for memory addressing simpler.
    - Avshalom 10y ago
      Well unless your array is more than just x-many addresses in a row, like if the array carries metadata related to length (like every language but C) or if it's a sparse array (hint sparse arrays are super common in numerical work).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jules 10y ago
Does 1 based indexing actually matter? It does if you are doing index arithmetic for rolling your own multidimensional arrays for example, but one shouldn't do those kind of things anyway.
- Fomite 10y ago
  One thing to keep in mind is that scientific computing languages often have people using them who are not programmers, and who will not be "rolling their own multidimensional arrays." If they're used to R, MATLAB, or basically any statistics programming/scripting language ever, not only will they be expecting 1-based indexing, they might not even know that that's a thing they have to think about.
  - developer2 10y ago
    >> they be expecting 1-based indexing, they might not even know that that's a thing they have to think about The truth of the matter is that this is not a point that anyone should ever mention as either a pro or con of any language. It's simply a fact that you're going to see one or the other, and it's useless to complain about which one is present in any given language. It's a one-time discovery as to which you're working with. People try to make it out to be a debilitating factor, when in reality it's a non-issue.
- bluecalm 10y ago
  There are tons of things which you need an index for when iterating over an array. Do something different for every 4th element but then something else if it's 16th. Keep doing something for triplets of elements unless you run into specific index which is divisible by 7, then start taking them one by one. Iterate but go 5 elements back if you encounter something in some state. There are a lot of algorithms which take advantage of array being an indexed data structure with an order and not just plain container without structure. The problem doesn't just go away with for each style loops. Python added enumerate for this reason but it really is quite clumsy for anything more complicated (and you have to choose if it's indexing from 0 or 1 anyway).
mindcrime 10y ago
To be honest I wouldn't want to start investing my time into a language where people who proposed 1 based indexing are making design decisions. Possibly because you're used to working with languages like C, C++, Java, Pascal, Javascript, Python, etc. But in the world of languages tied closely to scientific / mathematical programming (Matlab/Octave, R, etc.) 1-based indexing is the norm. If you'd "grown up" so to speak, in that world, you'd probably find 0-based indexing distasteful.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  Pascal (and Ada) actually expects you to specify the both the first and last index foo[1..10] or foo[0..9] are both valid arrays (though I believe 1 is the traditional first index) which is handy when you do run into situations where one or the other is a poor fit for an algorithm.
- bluecalm 10y ago
  Yes, my argument is purely about habits. 1-based indexing is a potent trap for programmers who are used to implementing stuff in 0-based indexing world.
- xxs 10y ago
  Around 3 decades ago when started with BASIC, Pascal/Delphi 1-based index was pretty much the norm and off-by-1 mistakes were significantly more dominant. Switching to zero based index Java/Javascript/C felt a lot more natural (no need for upper bound, always include->exclusive when it comes to bounds). Many algorithms benefit greatly from as well (hashtables + bitwise AND, for instance) Virtually I do not recall making off-by-one errors while working with Java. Whilst it could be attributed to personal experience, the loops construct "for (int i=0; i<length; i++)" or "for(int i=length; i-->0;)" appear quite intuitive. Strict bounds (i.e. < or >) feel more elegant as well. Seeing, using both type of indexing, 0-based one would a winner by large margin in my book.
tcpekin 10y ago
I don't really get the difference. I'm in academia i guess (grad school) and use MATLAB a bunch, as well as Python (not a CS major). I don't think it's that much work to switch between the two, and I don't understand why there's such a division. Why is this such a huge deal?
- nl 10y ago
  It's not. It's nothing more than bike-shedding language design. It's an easy thing to discuss, and everyone is an expert. Meanwhile, the real problems get ignored.

chappi42 10y ago

R and Mathematica are also 1 based. And R really is popular (http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=index http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=index - ok, popularity is droping right now, likely b/c of Julia ;-))

c3534l 10y ago
Julia seems like it's meant to be friendly to people who know MATLAB, Python, and R (even Fortran). R and Python are really comfortable with working with data science and that's what Julia is geared toward. I have no experience with MATLAB, though. Julia's programming "world" may indeed be a different programming world than C programmers. I'm not defending Julia per se. I've been patiently observing from the sidelines to see how the language shapes up.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
banku_brougham 10y ago
R is ranked lower year-on-year, but if you click into the actual rating time series you can see that R is on a tear into new highs of popularity. For that matter so is MATLAB. Julia is still buried in the next 50 list. BTW i'm a julia proponent, I'm just starting into it but I like a lot about it.
eternalban 10y ago
So is Lua.
- bdowling 10y ago
  Lua tables are more interesting than that. You can have an table that is indexed by any supported type. That means tables indexed by positive or negative integers, floating point values, references to other objects or other tables, true, false, strings, coroutines, and external memory references can all be indexes. You can also have a single table indexed by any combination of these.
  - eternalban 10y ago
    Isn't that technically a hashtable and not an array?
    - bdowling 10y ago
      In Lua the same data structure is used for both. The implementation optimizes the data structure like an array when you use a range of non-negative integers as indexes.
nonbel 10y ago
>"popularity is droping right now, likely b/c of Julia" I don't see how you concluded that? http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=R http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=R

dnautics 10y ago

You shouldn't be so biased. Having one based indexing makes translating numerical recipes from pure math textbooks (where vectors and matrices are generally one-based) simpler and less error prone. I say this as someone who chafes at Julia's one based indexing as a matter of professional practice.

bluecalm 10y ago
It's very error prone if you implemented algorithms using 0 based indexing your whole programming life. You are just bound to make mistakes if suddenly it's 1 based indexing. I am not saying 0 based indexing is technically superior (I really have no opinion on that). I could compare it to switching positions of brake and accelerator in a car - you can talk about brake on the right design being superior all you want but the fatal crashes will happen if you implement it.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Of course, zero-based indexing is prone to error if you've grown up using natural language ordinals your whole life, and get business requirements based in them both of which are stunningly common of real developers and real development tasks.
- rrock 10y ago
  This is exactly why all of my off by one errors happen in zero-based indexing languages. I need 1-based languages for data analysis, and 0-based languages for working on instrumentation.
- dnautics 10y ago
  0-based indexing is technically superior, because it makes offsets for memory addressing simpler.
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    Well unless your array is more than just x-many addresses in a row, like if the array carries metadata related to length (like every language but C) or if it's a sparse array (hint sparse arrays are super common in numerical work).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jules 10y ago

Does 1 based indexing actually matter? It does if you are doing index arithmetic for rolling your own multidimensional arrays for example, but one shouldn't do those kind of things anyway.

Fomite 10y ago
One thing to keep in mind is that scientific computing languages often have people using them who are not programmers, and who will not be "rolling their own multidimensional arrays." If they're used to R, MATLAB, or basically any statistics programming/scripting language ever, not only will they be expecting 1-based indexing, they might not even know that that's a thing they have to think about.
- developer2 10y ago
  >> they be expecting 1-based indexing, they might not even know that that's a thing they have to think about The truth of the matter is that this is not a point that anyone should ever mention as either a pro or con of any language. It's simply a fact that you're going to see one or the other, and it's useless to complain about which one is present in any given language. It's a one-time discovery as to which you're working with. People try to make it out to be a debilitating factor, when in reality it's a non-issue.
bluecalm 10y ago
There are tons of things which you need an index for when iterating over an array. Do something different for every 4th element but then something else if it's 16th. Keep doing something for triplets of elements unless you run into specific index which is divisible by 7, then start taking them one by one. Iterate but go 5 elements back if you encounter something in some state. There are a lot of algorithms which take advantage of array being an indexed data structure with an order and not just plain container without structure. The problem doesn't just go away with for each style loops. Python added enumerate for this reason but it really is quite clumsy for anything more complicated (and you have to choose if it's indexing from 0 or 1 anyway).

mindcrime 10y ago

To be honest I wouldn't want to start investing my time into a language where people who proposed 1 based indexing are making design decisions. Possibly because you're used to working with languages like C, C++, Java, Pascal, Javascript, Python, etc. But in the world of languages tied closely to scientific / mathematical programming (Matlab/Octave, R, etc.) 1-based indexing is the norm. If you'd "grown up" so to speak, in that world, you'd probably find 0-based indexing distasteful.

Avshalom 10y ago
Pascal (and Ada) actually expects you to specify the both the first and last index foo[1..10] or foo[0..9] are both valid arrays (though I believe 1 is the traditional first index) which is handy when you do run into situations where one or the other is a poor fit for an algorithm.
bluecalm 10y ago
Yes, my argument is purely about habits. 1-based indexing is a potent trap for programmers who are used to implementing stuff in 0-based indexing world.
xxs 10y ago
Around 3 decades ago when started with BASIC, Pascal/Delphi 1-based index was pretty much the norm and off-by-1 mistakes were significantly more dominant. Switching to zero based index Java/Javascript/C felt a lot more natural (no need for upper bound, always include->exclusive when it comes to bounds). Many algorithms benefit greatly from as well (hashtables + bitwise AND, for instance) Virtually I do not recall making off-by-one errors while working with Java. Whilst it could be attributed to personal experience, the loops construct "for (int i=0; i<length; i++)" or "for(int i=length; i-->0;)" appear quite intuitive. Strict bounds (i.e. < or >) feel more elegant as well. Seeing, using both type of indexing, 0-based one would a winner by large margin in my book.

tcpekin 10y ago

I don't really get the difference. I'm in academia i guess (grad school) and use MATLAB a bunch, as well as Python (not a CS major). I don't think it's that much work to switch between the two, and I don't understand why there's such a division. Why is this such a huge deal?

nl 10y ago
It's not. It's nothing more than bike-shedding language design. It's an easy thing to discuss, and everyone is an expert. Meanwhile, the real problems get ignored.