Talk:Array (data type)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
[[Talk:Array data
User:Cyberc|Cyber]] ([[User talk:Cyber 01:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] (talk)18:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This note was (sorry)stupid for the following reason: in french there is no equivalent tofloor, instead the word used (and thought)étage means so-to-say "over-floor". Thus,étage 1 is englishfloor 2. Andfloor 1/ground floor logically isétage 0, that is in fact a non-étage; this also fits pretty well with underground levels numbered from -1 down. (I guess in english-speaking countries there probably is no 0 button, just like there is no year 0?)
denis ''spir'' (talk)17:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this bit:Thus, an array of numbers with 5 rows and 4 columns, hence 20 elements, is said to have dimension 2 in computing contexts, but represents a matrix with dimension 4-by-5 or 20 in mathematics.
My informal impression is that it's common to speak of a matrix as-dimensional, but much less so to call the product the dimension. Something like the latter only happens when one considers aset of matrices as a vector space; for example, the set of all self-adjoint matrices forms a-dimensional vector space, in which the natural counterpart of the dot product is theHilbert–Schmidt inner product. But that notion of dimension depends upon which space the matrix is regarded as belonging to.XOR'easter (talk)14:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by presenting
for (i = 0; i < 5; i += 1)
as if it's a unique construct of zero-based indexing paradigms.
One could use those EXACT same parameters with one-based indexing,
withEVEN LESS verbosity, by doing
for (i = 0; i++ < 5; )
thus eliminating the need for the 3rd portion of thefor() loop construct. In either construct, the final value ofi would be 1 more than the highest index of the array. So it's beyond ridiculous to claim how zero-based indexing is any better, or how it "prevents one-off error". The risk of one-off errors are identical. It's two sides of the same coin.
Because if it were, all the math oriented software and platforms would have adopted it.
You know what ACTUALLY introduces plenty of one-off errors ? Having to substring or string slice at indices off by one from the human speech position of the letter(s) by having languages that tell people "the index position 2 letter of the word ONE isn't the 2nd letter", or suggesting people do lookup of July 24th by accessing
calendar[6][23]
How intuitive of zero-based languages indeed.2603:7000:3C3D:4840:0:0:0:3C3 (talk)18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
