4 ms·

Still not decided. Matlab, and more recently Julia, also adopted Fortran’s stupid convention.

azag0 10y ago
Can we stop calling it stupid? It's different. I prefer 1-based in Fortran where I deal exclusively with matrices, and 0-based in any more general programming.
- nemoniac 10y ago
  Here's Dijkstra arguing the case well: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EW...
  - effie 10y ago
    I see no argument there, only a subjective statement "0 ≤ i < N is nicer". To me, 1 ≤ i ≤ N is nicer because it is what most people think when they see sequence 1..N. In addition, the last number of the sequence indicates the count of the members.
    - Athas 10y ago
      > In addition, the last number of the sequence indicates the count of the members. This is only the case for 1..N, not for I..J, when 'I' is not one. In this general case, the number of elements is 'J-I' if using zero-based numbering and exclusive upper bounds, which is more convenient. Zero-base also simplifies index arithmetic with modulo operations, such as when you are mapping between different index spaces.
    - nemoniac 10y ago
      It's not so much that it's "nicer". It's that it's simpler. In his "Simple Made Easy" talk, Rich Hickey quotes Dijkstra saying "Simplicity is a prerequisite for reliability". Here's some more grist to the mill, currently on the HN front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13547317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13547317
notalaser 10y ago
It's not stupid when writing mathematics-related code. Few things are more annoying than having to mentally translate between the 1-based indexing in every formula, theorem and equation to the 0-based indexing in a program. I agree (based on Dijkstra's arguments, I'm not smart enough to come up with my own) that 0-based indexing is the more logical, general choice, but 1-based indexing is more convenient for about 99% of the code written in Fortran, Matlab or Julia.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  It’s usually better to start from zero in mathematical formulas too (in many cases simplifies them, and most of the rest of the time makes no difference). It’s just that mathematics as a field is very slow to change, and the cultural tradition of starting with 1 is thousands of years old.
  - chestervonwinch 10y ago
    > It’s usually better to start from zero in mathematical formulas too ... No, it's not. There is no universally preferred indexing in mathematics. The indexing scheme that is "natural" changes with the particular application. There are of course instances when 0-based indexing makes more sense [1], [2]. But, there are cases when starting at 1 is more natural, as well [3]. Moreover, there are instances where starting with negative indices is more natural, say with the coefficients of the truncated Fourier series, or with the weights of a finite difference operator or of a cross-correlation operator. Fortran supports all these conventions, which allows for a more direct translation of the mathematics to code. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Formula [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series#Definition [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- 10y ago
FabHK 10y ago
> Matlab, and more recently Julia, also adopted Fortran’s stupid convention. Julia, as far as I understand, consciously mimicked Matlab there, to facilitate transition.
throwaway7645 10y ago
Lua also uses 1-based.

azag0 10y ago

Can we stop calling it stupid? It's different. I prefer 1-based in Fortran where I deal exclusively with matrices, and 0-based in any more general programming.

nemoniac 10y ago
Here's Dijkstra arguing the case well: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EW...
- effie 10y ago
  I see no argument there, only a subjective statement "0 ≤ i < N is nicer". To me, 1 ≤ i ≤ N is nicer because it is what most people think when they see sequence 1..N. In addition, the last number of the sequence indicates the count of the members.
  - Athas 10y ago
    > In addition, the last number of the sequence indicates the count of the members. This is only the case for 1..N, not for I..J, when 'I' is not one. In this general case, the number of elements is 'J-I' if using zero-based numbering and exclusive upper bounds, which is more convenient. Zero-base also simplifies index arithmetic with modulo operations, such as when you are mapping between different index spaces.
  - nemoniac 10y ago
    It's not so much that it's "nicer". It's that it's simpler. In his "Simple Made Easy" talk, Rich Hickey quotes Dijkstra saying "Simplicity is a prerequisite for reliability". Here's some more grist to the mill, currently on the HN front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13547317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13547317

notalaser 10y ago

It's not stupid when writing mathematics-related code. Few things are more annoying than having to mentally translate between the 1-based indexing in every formula, theorem and equation to the 0-based indexing in a program. I agree (based on Dijkstra's arguments, I'm not smart enough to come up with my own) that 0-based indexing is the more logical, general choice, but 1-based indexing is more convenient for about 99% of the code written in Fortran, Matlab or Julia.

jacobolus 10y ago
It’s usually better to start from zero in mathematical formulas too (in many cases simplifies them, and most of the rest of the time makes no difference). It’s just that mathematics as a field is very slow to change, and the cultural tradition of starting with 1 is thousands of years old.
- chestervonwinch 10y ago
  > It’s usually better to start from zero in mathematical formulas too ... No, it's not. There is no universally preferred indexing in mathematics. The indexing scheme that is "natural" changes with the particular application. There are of course instances when 0-based indexing makes more sense [1], [2]. But, there are cases when starting at 1 is more natural, as well [3]. Moreover, there are instances where starting with negative indices is more natural, say with the coefficients of the truncated Fourier series, or with the weights of a finite difference operator or of a cross-correlation operator. Fortran supports all these conventions, which allows for a more direct translation of the mathematics to code. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Formula [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series#Definition [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
10y ago

FabHK 10y ago

> Matlab, and more recently Julia, also adopted Fortran’s stupid convention. Julia, as far as I understand, consciously mimicked Matlab there, to facilitate transition.

throwaway7645 10y ago

Lua also uses 1-based.