There is no such thing as “zeroith”. Does not matter which numbers you slap on the tables, the one with the lowest number will always be the first. The word “first” has nothing to do with indices, it’s just an antonym for “last”.
There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”
This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.
You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least
I kind of brought this up in another comment, that “first” and “1st” aren’t really the same thing. Which is confusing when you extend that to fourth/4th five/5th. I don’t generally see someone write “zeroith”, but I’ll see “0th”.
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.
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.
This could be why Obiwan wound up a hermit? (Programmers of my generation at least talk about “Obiwan errors” because his name sounds like “off-by-one”.)
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.
Plot twist, neither cared about the table number
One went to the first table produced, the other to the first table placed
DROP TABLE 01;
Dangit Bobby!
I work with juniper switches 0 is my 1
Fuck juniper fr though
Hey, if she thinks 1 is 1st index then you
doggeddodged a bullet and deserve better.Happy now all you English majors.
🐕🐕🐕
😳
IS THIS Love Advice From the Great Duke of Hell??
(it’s a webcomic, I loved the story)
She was a lua girl, he was every other programming language guy. It was not ment to happen.
Hey, don’t forget the Matlab people
Also the plot of Before Sunset 🏆
Isn’t the guy at the zeroith table?
Yes, and if he texted “Hey, I’m at the zeroith table” and the woman replied with the sibling comment then you know to run far and run fast.
There is no such thing as “zeroith”. Does not matter which numbers you slap on the tables, the one with the lowest number will always be the first. The word “first” has nothing to do with indices, it’s just an antonym for “last”.
There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”
This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.
You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least
That’s a problem when you get to the fourth.
I kind of brought this up in another comment, that “first” and “1st” aren’t really the same thing. Which is confusing when you extend that to fourth/4th five/5th. I don’t generally see someone write “zeroith”, but I’ll see “0th”.
And here I thought people write “1st” because they are lazy and want to press 3 keys instead of 5.
Wouldn’t it be nice if documentation used the words index and offset consistently?
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
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.
in my understanding offset is technically the “relative index”, or how much you have to go further
Yes they are presented in the programmer wrong. The first thing in memory should have offset 0 and index 1
1st table is not equal to table 01 because there no 0st table
Nonbinary
This could be why Obiwan wound up a hermit? (Programmers of my generation at least talk about “Obiwan errors” because his name sounds like “off-by-one”.)
I still mess this up for lists in Python…
Don’t wanna state the obvious, but it looks like they still ended up staring at each other for the rest of the evening.
They have shown that they still love each other, so hope they can work with their one irreconcilable difference.
I love the idea that they’re at two adjacent tables, each one staring at the other wondering why they hate them.
They hate each other because they are intolerant to one another’s index choices
If you love me meet me at first floor
Americans 😢 British 🤷♂️
The Major: “Fighting retreat at first light”
Me alone in the trench the morning after next, woken by German voices: “Oh no!”
explanation
Exactly what this reminded me of. Thanks.