>want to get first(1st) element in array
>array[0]
wtf i hate programming now
Want to get first(1st) element in array
Henry Parker
Lucas Smith
You've made this thread before
Angel Baker
It's because they copied the C memes
Sebastian Morris
/thread and OP is a fag
Carter Johnson
Thanks for the cool memes, OP
Eli Hughes
#define FIRST 0
array[FIRST]
DANKE
Leo Nelson
>mentally subtracting 1 every time makes my brain overheat
Carter Price
>why not x+1?
or maybe just x
Jonathan Robinson
>length of array ≠ offset of final element in array
what a joke
Caleb Russell
>the one and only advantage to 1-based indexing
what a joke
Nolan Brown
Heck, why even have 0? We don't need nothing right?
Oliver Allen
use lua then,it counts from 1
Mason Watson
> Sup Forums BTFO
> how can Sup Forums even compete?
> will Sup Forums ever recover?
> Sup Forums will defend this
> protip: you can't
> what did he mean by this?
> really makes you think
Look mom, I posted it again!
Ethan Richardson
It is OK. Everyone hates that at first. But if you end up doing a lot of programming in school (or as a hobby) then you get used to it. And starting at zero becomes natural.
Aaron Hall
I'm being sincere, I've only seen one user actually try to argue for 0-based indexing with examples. until you idiots learn to work together and educate me I'll continue posting it.
Jack Edwards
array[0] = *(array + 0)
OP is a fag
Kevin Murphy
>array[0] = *(array + 0)
Is that a pointer or something?
Samuel Nguyen
Yes. array is a pointer to the first element of the array.
Alexander Foster
You're being an asshole about it OP. I understand your sentiment, but it's like asking why is the basic word size is 8 bits when a lot of shit was done with 5-bit baudot codes, or 6-lowercase-is-for-plebs-bit, and for a long time 7-bit ASCII was "enough", etc...
Nobody is shitposting about "lawlz, 7 days in a week, 7 bits in an ASCII code, 8-bits are for nigz"
Maybe try doing some of your own research.
Elijah Bailey
it's pointer syntax
semantically it's: Position named "array" + 0 + sizeof(type)
Which is the main reason we index from 0
When arrays were just memory positions, it made sense.
These days it's mainly because it makes weird arithmetic things (e.g. multidimensional without fragmenting memory) easier
Jackson Torres
wot if you went past the array length with the pointer? like *(array + 99) when the array only contains 50 items?
Jonathan Sanders
>Maybe try doing some of your own research.
Why? You guys give me (You)s every time I post. I wouldn't get the same level of satisfaction.
rbt.asia
rbt.asia
rbt.asia
Parker Jones
>When arrays were just memory positions, it made sense.
>were
Arrays are still just memory locations.
Connor Kelly
>2016
>not storing array items in random locations in memory
ishygddt
Grayson Sanders
you'd get whatever garbage is stored at that address in memory
Gavin Watson
I think there are some very old languages that have an index that starts with 1
Caleb King
In general, random stuff, at least in C.
From garbage to trap to segfault anythin can happen, depending on memory layout, virtual memory manager, kernel and sometimes libc.
Usually (unless using C, or low level languages) the array type is some kind of abstraction over the memory location. Most of the time they have some bounds checking.
The [] operator is still used, but has slightly different semantics, so I wouldn't call it "just a location in memory" even if that's the underlying storage.
Evan Jenkins
No, back in Fortran days, arrays started at 0 but people kept passing the pointer to functions as array[-1] so they could act like it was 1 indexed. You could still do that in C if you really want.
Wyatt Diaz