Halfway to Lua lol
From this point on, all arrays are reverse-indexed.
♾️-0 ♾️-1 …
Hey now, you know that according to the Bible the biggest number is a million. Anything larger than that including infinity is some of that “woke shit”.
Your array will be 999,999, 999,998, 999,997 …
Implying the orange fella has any say in programming language design and general tech conventions
Implying he only makes executive orders about things he has a say in.
You have a point unfortunately.
- Push directly to master, not main
- No command line args, just change the global const and recompile
- No env vars either
- Port numbers only go up to 5280, the number of feet in a mile
- All auth is just a password; tokens are minority developers, not auth, and usernames are identity politics
- No hashes – it’s the gateway drug to fentanyl
- No imports. PROTECT INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT
- Exceptions are now illegal and therefore won’t occur, so no need to check for them
- SOAP/XML APIs only
Exceptions are now illegal and therefore won’t occur, so no need to check for them
Ah, I see you’ve met C++ developers.
No command line args, just change the global const and recompile
Nah, don’t use global variables, magic values everywhere. And don’t use const whatsoever, we need to move fast and break things, we can’t let something immutable stop us
- Port numbers only go up to 5280, the number of feet in a mile
What about internationalization – do the European port numbers go up to the cm or only meter count within a kilometer?
Arrays not starting at 1 bother me. I think the entrenched 0-based index is more important than any major push to use 1 instead, but if I could go back in time and change it I would.
It really doesn’t make sense to start at 1 as the value is really the distance from the start and would screw up other parts of indexing and counters.
Yeah, but if we went back and time and changed it then there wouldn’t be other stuff relying on it being 0-based.
It was not randomly decided. Even before arrays as a language concept existed, you would just store objects in continuous memory.
To access you would do $addr+0, $addr+1 etc. The index had to be zero-based or you would simply waste the first address.
Then in languages like C that just got a little bit of syntactic sugar where the ‘[]’ operator is a shorthand for that offset. An array is still just a memory address (i.e. a pointer).
I know. But in the alternate reality where we’d been using 1-based indices forever you’d be telling me how useful it is that the first element is “1” instead of zero and I’d be saying there are some benefits to using zero based index because it’s more like an offset than an index.
A lot of mathematical languages start from 1: R, Julia, Mathematica (and also Lua and Fish).
I don’t know why, but in, e.g. R, it doesn’t bother me, I get caught by it in Lua all the time.
I suppose it’s a function of how far the array is abstracted from being pointers to an address that makes it easier to mentally switch.
It doesn’t make sense that the fourth element is element number 3 either.
Ultimately it’s just about you being used to it.
It would screw up existing code but doing [array.length() -1] is pretty stupid.
For i = 0; I <= array.length; i++
Casually throws in capitals as well.
My post is a work of fiction
i < array.lengthor else you overflow.
A lot of languages have a
.last()or negative indexer ([-1]) to get the last item though.
this is what messed me up with ZSH for a bit, having a shell default to 1 instead of 0 was weird
Also remove null reference
I started reading that from the top and got increasingly angry on the way down. That creature is a monster.
MAGA - Make Assembly Great Again
didn’t know donny was a forth programmer
What about stacks grows to higher addresses?
Im unfamiliar with this as well. If you are allocating memory for a stack, why does it matter which direction it populates data? Is this just a convention?
I ask deepseek: Downward-growing stacks** are more common in many architectures (e.g., x86, ARM). This convention originated from early computer architectures and has been carried forward for consistency.
Funny, I can’t remember, , because I did a lot of assembler back in my youth.
Ah thank you so its just a convention.
reverting main back to master
Yeah…this one is sadly on brand
For this political correctness you get trunk.
Sadly? Master branch never implied the existence of a slave branch. It was one of the dumbest pieces of woke incursion into tech.
It was kind of pointless, but at least it made software work with custom default branches.
Yeah agreed. Just another piece of white devs acting like they knew better for everyone.
But why even? There’s no risk to changing it and some risk to keeping it. That’s the reason for the push to change it. Keeping something just because it’s tradition isn’t a good idea outside ceremonies.
I don’t accept that because everyone’s doing it or “group-think” are valid excuses do jump on a trend. Things like this maybe don’t seem like a big deal for you but for those that hate this culture it’s just one more example of a dumb change being shoved down their throats. This could also be the straw that breaks the camels back.
They have a reason. You just don’t like it.
They do, and you’re right. Morality policing and prigs are not my thing.
It’s the principle of letting uneducated people dictate what words are acceptable to us
What makes you think they’re uneducated?
letting uneducated people
More like overeducated people
overeducated people who can’t see that “master” has multiple meanings.
There is definitely a risk in changing it. Many automation systems that assume there is a master branch needed to be changed. Something that’s trivial yes but changing a perfectly running system is always a potential risk.
Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.
If they can’t change what’s essentially a variable name without issues then should they be doing the job?
In assessing risk assume everyone is a bumbling idiot. For we all have moments of great stupidity.
pray tell me how would you change the name in every script of an automation system that refers to master? Remember, you have to justify the time and cost to your manager or director!
Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.
That’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.
Not according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.
Well, he doesn’t seem so sure about it himself. From the same link:
(But as noted in a separate thread, it is possible it stems from bitkeeper’s master/slave terminology. I hoped to do some historical research but health emergency in my family delayed that.)
He also said:
the impression words form in the reader is more important than their intent
He didn’t intend for the master/slave connotation. He intended for the recording master connotation. Either way, he regrets using the word master and he’s supportive of the change.
In alignment with this, we should not replace the master branch with the main branch, we should replace it with the gold branch.
Every time a PR gets approval and it’s time to merge, I could declare that the code has “gone gold” and I am not doing that right now!
Merged -> gone gold
Deployed -> gone platinum
Gone a week without crashing production -> triple platinum
Error handling should only be with “if”
Variable names must be generic and similar to each-other
Debugging is only done with prints
Version numbers must be incoherent, hard to order correctly, contain letters and jump in ways that don’t align with the updates done.
Single letters or UTF8 symbols only. Emojis are encouraged.
Variable names should be var{n} where n = 0, 1, 2…
Pff, just use the numbers directly:
${1} = "value"; ${2} = "DOGE";That makes it possible to do stuff like:
for (${152} = 1; ${152} <= 2; ${152}++) { ${666} = $${152}; print(${666}); }This is a valid code, btw.
I don’t get why only four of these are jokes
He’s got to be in contact with the CEO of my company, this is trade secret theft if not…
Am I The only one that sees the tie as yellow in this photo?
NOT AGAIN
I see sprinkles of orange.
Yes. It’s clearly red.
I see it as blue
GTFOH with that. 1-indexed arrays?! You monster.
(Mostly joking… Ok, somewhat joking :P )
Visual Basic used to let you choose if you wanted to start arrays at 0 or 1. It was an app-wide setting, so that was fun.
I’ve not heard that name in a long time…
It’s how I got into programming, so I’ll always have a soft spot for it. Now it’s over 20 years later and I’m still coding.
How is arrays starting at 1 still a controversial take. Arrays should start at 1 and offsets at 0.
Arrays are address offsets.
Not in languages where you don’t manually handle memory, such as PHP, SQL, Python… Higher-level languages using 0-indexed arrays are letting the abstraction leak.
So what’s 0 do then? I’m okay with wacky indexes (I’ve used something with negative indexes for a end-index shorthand) but 0 has to mean something that’s actually useful. Using the index as the offset into the array seems to be the most useful way to index them.
I’d say the index is actually an offset is a reasoning for explaining why it should start at 1. If index was an index, I’d just start at 1.
I don’t think any one is better than the other, but history chose 0.
That you can choose it in VB is probably the worst option :D
Lua has entered the chat
and MATLAB, Visual Basic (with
Option Base 1), and SQL.Writing Lua code that also interacts with C code that uses 0 indexing is an awful experience. Annoys me to this day even though haven’t used it for 2 years
Lua had been banned from the chat
In Lua all arrays are just dictionaries with integer keys, a[0] will work just fine. It’s just that all built-in functions will expect arrays that start with index 1.
That’s slightly misleading, I think. There are no arrays in Lua, every Lua data structure is a table (sometimes pretending to be something else) and you can have anything as a key as long as it’s not nil. There’s also no integers, Lua only has a single number type which is floating point. This is perfectly valid:
local tbl = {} local f = function() error(":(") end tbl[tbl] = tbl tbl[f] = tbl tbl["tbl"] = tbl print(tbl) -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 print(tbl[tbl], tbl[f], tbl["tbl"]) -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 table: 0x557a907f0f40 table: 0x557a907f0f40 for key,value in pairs(tbl) do print(key, "=", value) end -- tbl = table: 0x557a907f0f40 -- function: 0x557a907edff0 = table: 0x557a907f0f40 -- table: 0x557a907f0f40 = table: 0x557a907f0f40 print(type(1), type(-0.5), type(math.pi), type(math.maxinteger)) -- number number number numberYour argument isn’t making me any happier - it just fills me with more rage.
PHP did that same thing. It was a big problem when algorithmic complexity attacks were discovered. It took PHP years to integrate an effective solution that didn’t break everything.
Fortran angrily starts typing…
Don’t do my boy Lua dirty like that >:(
I always felt that Lua was a girl
Lua - Portuguese feminine noun for “moon”, coming from the Latin “luna”
Luna - Latin, feminine noun (coincidentally identical to the Italian noun, also feminine)Yup, Lua is a girl.
Luna is also same as the spanish noun, also feminine
