5 ms·

0 based arrays is objectively the preferred way for me and not for historical reasons. I write a lot of low level graphics algorithm stuff, and 1-based arrays w

by nadam 8y ago

0 based arrays is objectively the preferred way for me and not for historical reasons. I write a lot of low level graphics algorithm stuff, and 1-based arrays would complicate index arithmetic. like now with everything 0 based having something like: arr[offset1 * 32 + offset2] would be the following if all my offsets would be 1-based and arrays would be 1-based: arr[(offset1 -1) * 32 + offset2] which is pretty arbitrary...

syockit 8y ago
You could reshape it (https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/base/arrays/#Base.reshape https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/base/arrays/#Base.reshape). But if you're interfacing with libraries written with C interface you'd still have to subtract for both offset1 and offset2.
baldfat 8y ago
Historically 0 based is for low level languages. 0 based makes sense for C. My issue is higher level languages Python, Java, C# there is plenty of things that just are complicated and doing arrays off 0 is one of them. Doing data science or statistics just makes it obvious that you have two different sets on numbers. 1 doesn't mean the same thing in every instance in your programming and the functional programming side of me hates that.
b_tterc_p 8y ago
“Objectively preferred for me” sounds an awful lot like it’s subjective
oblio 8y ago
A ton more people do high level programming, than low level programming. You guys build the tools and many more people use them.
simondanisch 8y ago
that may be your impression, because you dont know julia's powerful, no overhead indexing abstractions yet ;) i also write lots of graphics low level code, and i couldn't be more glad that i don't need to do those error ridden indexing calculations anymore, since they're simply not needed... note, that you can also seamlessly create new array types that store 0 indices into other arrays - and because of julia's great composability, i can make them work with my indexing agnostic algorithms while being 0 overhead compatible with opengl's memory layout :)

by nadam 8y ago

syockit 8y ago

You could reshape it (https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/base/arrays/#Base.reshape https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/base/arrays/#Base.reshape). But if you're interfacing with libraries written with C interface you'd still have to subtract for both offset1 and offset2.

baldfat 8y ago

Historically 0 based is for low level languages. 0 based makes sense for C. My issue is higher level languages Python, Java, C# there is plenty of things that just are complicated and doing arrays off 0 is one of them. Doing data science or statistics just makes it obvious that you have two different sets on numbers. 1 doesn't mean the same thing in every instance in your programming and the functional programming side of me hates that.

b_tterc_p 8y ago

“Objectively preferred for me” sounds an awful lot like it’s subjective

oblio 8y ago

A ton more people do high level programming, than low level programming. You guys build the tools and many more people use them.

simondanisch 8y ago

that may be your impression, because you dont know julia's powerful, no overhead indexing abstractions yet ;) i also write lots of graphics low level code, and i couldn't be more glad that i don't need to do those error ridden indexing calculations anymore, since they're simply not needed... note, that you can also seamlessly create new array types that store 0 indices into other arrays - and because of julia's great composability, i can make them work with my indexing agnostic algorithms while being 0 overhead compatible with opengl's memory layout :)