5 ms·

The problem isn't that 1-base indexing can be "fixed" in Julia. The problem is that you see 1-based indexing as a flaw.

dekhn 4y ago
I didn't say I see 1-based indexing as a flaw. I said I complained about it, and then learned they supported multiple types of offsets (which ostensibly resolved the issue for me), only to learn that the stats library was "written before offsetindex" and still has bugs related to it.
IshKebab 4y ago
It is a flaw. Computers don't work that way fundamentally, and it introduces lots of awkward translation.
- dash2 4y ago
  But humans don't work 0-based. Try explaining to a bunch of scientists why for rows 2-5 of the DataFrame they have to write df[1:5].
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    Yeah because humans got it wrong. Really the word for "first" should correspond to the number 0. Try doing a block iteration over an array, or any kind of interval algorithms in 0-based and 1-based. 0-based with right-open intervals just results in way way more elegant, easier to understand and (very) slightly more efficient code.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      The reason why this 0 vs 1 based indexing debate is never resolved is because all of the arguments are subjective. You've claimed definitively that "humans got it wrong", but to back up this argument you've pointed to vague notions of "elegance" and "understandability". Even Dijkstra in his argument relies on a notion of "ugliness". All such arguments fall squarely in the realm of "preferences". Just think about what you're saying: that natural language usage of the word "first" is wrong, and doing things the opposite way that everyone expects in programming languages is somehow more understandable? Really? Maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but not to people using the word as it's commonly used.
      - IshKebab 4y ago
        It's not subjective. The fundamental meaning of an index is "how far are we from the start of an array". The first element is 0 from the start of the array. If humans had got this right then we wouldn't be even having this discussion. Same for similar mistakes like Pi vs Tau, negative electrons. But the mistake is understandable given that we didn't even think of 0 for a long time.
        Rayhem 4y ago
        Yes, precisely. Indexing and counting are different operations.
        ModernMech 4y ago
        It's subjective because you haven't defined or quantified elegance or understandability. I could say that zero based indexing is not in fact understandable based on the amount of confusion I encounter explaining the concept to new users. I could say it's inelegant based on the fact it makes algorithms I use harder to implement. Others argue it's more elegant because it makes algorithms they use easier to implement. Same rationale, subjective conclusions. Dijkstra's argument as well hinges on an undefined notion of "ugliness", which can mean anything to anyone. That's why these conversations never end, because most people are talking past one another based on their own definitions of "elegance" or "ugliness".
        IshKebab 4y ago
        You encounter confusion explaining it to new users because they've learned it wrong their whole lives. Nobody has any trouble in the UK with lifts where the ground floor is 0 - one of the few places where humans got it right.
        ModernMech 4y ago
        Right but the existence of confusion cuts against your argument it’s more understandable. What you really mean is your brain works differently than everyone else’s, and you find something straightforward which they find confusing, therefore they are just thinking wrongly and it turns out your brain is the one with the correct worldview. That’s certainly a perspective.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      > ...humans got it wrong. [...] 0-based with right-open intervals just results in way way more elegant, easier to understand... You must have warped your brain into thinking like a computer (well, a C-family-language compiler) for so long and/or so thoroughly that you no longer think quite like an ordinary human. Having to sprinkle semi-arbitrary "-1"s all over your code is in no reasonable sense of the words "way way more elegant, easier to understand" than not having to do so.

I didn't say I see 1-based indexing as a flaw. I said I complained about it, and then learned they supported multiple types of offsets (which ostensibly resolved the issue for me), only to learn that the stats library was "written before offsetindex" and still has bugs related to it.

IshKebab 4y ago

It is a flaw. Computers don't work that way fundamentally, and it introduces lots of awkward translation.

dash2 4y ago
But humans don't work 0-based. Try explaining to a bunch of scientists why for rows 2-5 of the DataFrame they have to write df[1:5].
- IshKebab 4y ago
  Yeah because humans got it wrong. Really the word for "first" should correspond to the number 0. Try doing a block iteration over an array, or any kind of interval algorithms in 0-based and 1-based. 0-based with right-open intervals just results in way way more elegant, easier to understand and (very) slightly more efficient code.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    The reason why this 0 vs 1 based indexing debate is never resolved is because all of the arguments are subjective. You've claimed definitively that "humans got it wrong", but to back up this argument you've pointed to vague notions of "elegance" and "understandability". Even Dijkstra in his argument relies on a notion of "ugliness". All such arguments fall squarely in the realm of "preferences". Just think about what you're saying: that natural language usage of the word "first" is wrong, and doing things the opposite way that everyone expects in programming languages is somehow more understandable? Really? Maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but not to people using the word as it's commonly used.
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      It's not subjective. The fundamental meaning of an index is "how far are we from the start of an array". The first element is 0 from the start of the array. If humans had got this right then we wouldn't be even having this discussion. Same for similar mistakes like Pi vs Tau, negative electrons. But the mistake is understandable given that we didn't even think of 0 for a long time.
      - Rayhem 4y ago
        Yes, precisely. Indexing and counting are different operations.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        It's subjective because you haven't defined or quantified elegance or understandability. I could say that zero based indexing is not in fact understandable based on the amount of confusion I encounter explaining the concept to new users. I could say it's inelegant based on the fact it makes algorithms I use harder to implement. Others argue it's more elegant because it makes algorithms they use easier to implement. Same rationale, subjective conclusions. Dijkstra's argument as well hinges on an undefined notion of "ugliness", which can mean anything to anyone. That's why these conversations never end, because most people are talking past one another based on their own definitions of "elegance" or "ugliness".
        IshKebab 4y ago
        You encounter confusion explaining it to new users because they've learned it wrong their whole lives. Nobody has any trouble in the UK with lifts where the ground floor is 0 - one of the few places where humans got it right.
        ModernMech 4y ago
        Right but the existence of confusion cuts against your argument it’s more understandable. What you really mean is your brain works differently than everyone else’s, and you find something straightforward which they find confusing, therefore they are just thinking wrongly and it turns out your brain is the one with the correct worldview. That’s certainly a perspective.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > ...humans got it wrong. [...] 0-based with right-open intervals just results in way way more elegant, easier to understand... You must have warped your brain into thinking like a computer (well, a C-family-language compiler) for so long and/or so thoroughly that you no longer think quite like an ordinary human. Having to sprinkle semi-arbitrary "-1"s all over your code is in no reasonable sense of the words "way way more elegant, easier to understand" than not having to do so.