Aren’t those two the same thing? At least in C-style arrays, which might not be how they’re handled under the hood, but is at least how most languages present it to the programmer.
The problem is that they both are contextual and can mean any position in a list/array. The starting index or starting offset is generally zero, but could be one, depending on the language used.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Wouldn’t it be nice if documentation used the words index and offset consistently?
Aren’t those two the same thing? At least in C-style arrays, which might not be how they’re handled under the hood, but is at least how most languages present it to the programmer.
Yes they are presented in the programmer wrong. The first thing in memory should have offset 0 and index 1
in my understanding offset is technically the “relative index”, or how much you have to go further
The problem is that they both are contextual and can mean any position in a list/array. The starting index or starting offset is generally zero, but could be one, depending on the language used.
i wonder why people haven’t made a language that starts indexing at 2 yet. maybe some day
Maybe this could be a feature in brainfuck or COBOL.
god i hope so