3 ms·

> 1-based indexing was a mistake The most software I write, the more I am convinced that 1-based indexing is what most languages should be using, either the ex

> 1-based indexing was a mistake The most software I write, the more I am convinced that 1-based indexing is what most languages should be using, either the exception being the very specific use-case of needing to track offsets by hand for some reason. 1-based indexing is so much easier to reason about, but zero based indexing is seen as “the one true way” due its ubiquity, and not because it’s actually better. > and I have seen it emitting inefficient code in the PTX compiler. Have you raised this with the devs? This seems like something worth raising as an issue.

tgv 6y ago
Both approaches have their advantages, IMO. Inclusive ranges are usually easier to understand, but e.g. when picking a (uniformly distributed) random element from an array, nothing beats a[floor(rnd() * len(a)].
- dunefox 6y ago
  > nothing beats a[floor(rnd() * len(a)] What's wrong with rand(a)?
- socialdemocrat 6y ago
  How is that very readable? In Julia, this will pick a random value from an array: rand([3, 4, 5, 1]) While this picks a value from a range: rand(1:10) Much more straightforward to read IMHO. Where I prefer 0-based index is when dealing with coordinate systems and memory locations.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vcxy 6y ago
  Already mentioned, in julia just do rand(a). But if you didn't have that, couldn't you just switch out floor for ceil and have the exact equivalent for 1 based indexing?
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    No - rnd() can not return one, but can return zero, at which point you'd access index 0 even with ceil().
    - vcxy 6y ago
      Ah, thanks! I think I'll stick with rand(indexable_collection) in Julia since anything else just doesn't feel Julian, but I'll remember that for other 1-based languages if I come across it.
xiphias2 6y ago
To tell you the truth, I don’t really care about 0 or 1 based indexing, there’s not much difference when I’m coding. At the same time if you look at TIOBE, 0 based indexing won. The biggest problem for me was porting numerical code from Ruby: the syntax is so similar to Julia, that I didn’t have much to do, but porting 0 based code to 1 based was the biggest work actually. I’m sure it’s painful to port code from R or Marlab if it’s 0 based, but that will need to happen anyways.

tgv 6y ago

Both approaches have their advantages, IMO. Inclusive ranges are usually easier to understand, but e.g. when picking a (uniformly distributed) random element from an array, nothing beats a[floor(rnd() * len(a)].

dunefox 6y ago
> nothing beats a[floor(rnd() * len(a)] What's wrong with rand(a)?
socialdemocrat 6y ago
How is that very readable? In Julia, this will pick a random value from an array: rand([3, 4, 5, 1]) While this picks a value from a range: rand(1:10) Much more straightforward to read IMHO. Where I prefer 0-based index is when dealing with coordinate systems and memory locations.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vcxy 6y ago
Already mentioned, in julia just do rand(a). But if you didn't have that, couldn't you just switch out floor for ceil and have the exact equivalent for 1 based indexing?
- Sebb767 6y ago
  No - rnd() can not return one, but can return zero, at which point you'd access index 0 even with ceil().
  - vcxy 6y ago
    Ah, thanks! I think I'll stick with rand(indexable_collection) in Julia since anything else just doesn't feel Julian, but I'll remember that for other 1-based languages if I come across it.

xiphias2 6y ago

To tell you the truth, I don’t really care about 0 or 1 based indexing, there’s not much difference when I’m coding. At the same time if you look at TIOBE, 0 based indexing won. The biggest problem for me was porting numerical code from Ruby: the syntax is so similar to Julia, that I didn’t have much to do, but porting 0 based code to 1 based was the biggest work actually. I’m sure it’s painful to port code from R or Marlab if it’s 0 based, but that will need to happen anyways.