[REBOL] Correct Behaviour? R.I.P.
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 5-Jul-2001 17:20
Hi, again, Jeff,
Jeff Kreis wrote:
> > NASA does, in fact, "count down" to zero. That's the point
> > at which lauch occurs.
>
> They say "lift off" not zero, aye?
>
> "3 .. 2 .. 1 .. lift off!"
>
Right. Because they're naming the interesting thing that
happens *at* time t = 0 ...
> not
> "3 .. 2.. 1... 0... lift off!"
>
... because that would place the time of "lift off" *at*
t = +1 (one second too late).
> Rock and Roll is definitely one base indexed.
>
I find the present state of this thread highly ironic.
I don't believe I've ever denied that there are some applications
which are naturally and simply one-based (and if I have done so,
or left that impression, I categorically retract and apologize).
There certainly are.
But there are *also* many (non-"system") situations for which
zero is a natural basis. If a particular language does not
support that capability, it makes writing programs for those
situations more complicated (or at least, cluttered) than would
be the case otherwise. I offered several examples of such cases
without receiving any meaningful replise. I'm still interested
in ideas anyone may have to offer regarding effective work-
arounds in such situations.
We should admit that "array" is a low-level concept. Higher-
level data structures allow the programmer to connect "keys"
(of any type) with their associated values (also of any type).
The main reasons we programmers attach special significance
to arrays are:
1) Historical -- low-level languages came first, before we
knew how to do better, and
2) Performance -- a consecutive range of integers (regardless
of base point) can be used to perform "direct access" to
a specified region of memory, requiring less time than
searching a collection of keys of arbitrary data type.
Since the choice of base point is actually arbitrary, it seems
fair to discuss:
* the relative merits and pros/cons of the choice,
* how to work around the constraints imposed by any
particular choice, and
* whether one alternative has more flexibility, and offers
simpler expressions for a wide range of tasks, than some
of the others.
Other reasons to ask "Why...?" are:
* there are sometimes reasons for design choices that are
not obvious on the surface, and
* sometimes understanding the reason for a design decision
helps one use a feature more effectively.
Learning a new skill means that one actually has to be willing
to learn something one does not already know. This especially
applies to programming, which requires a degree of precision not
commonly required in other human activities. REBOL, like any other
programming language, contains concepts and distinctions that are
outside the everyday thought habits of John Q. Public.
John Q. thinks that computers can do arithmetic. When he
evaluates 5280 * 12 to tell his inquisitive daughter how
many inches are in a mile, it obligingly tells him 63360
as an answer. But when he tries to evaluate the expression
186282 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 to tell the same child how many
miles are in a light year, he gets
** Math Error: Math or number overflow
** Where: halt-view
** Near: 186282 * 60 * 60
Poor John Q. is forced to confront the difference between
integers and floating-point numbers, which he probably
never had to think about before.
John Q. has been typing since high school, and thinks that
an uppercase "A" is just an uppercase "A". Then he hits
upon the fact that #"A" = "A" is false!
Poor John Q. is forced to confront the difference between
characters and strings, which he probably never had to
think about before.
And the list goes on and on and on ...
Therefore, to dismiss a point of view out-of-hand on the grounds
that it is different from the everyday experience of "the rest
of the world" really begins to strain credibility.
Jeff, I believe I've said many times that I have considerable
respect for all of you at RT and for your accomplishments. Even
though I may not understand all of the design decisions made in
REBOL (or may disagree with some of the ones I understand ;-)
I think it is a fine piece of work, and I hope to see it do well.
But if this thread has gotten to the point where we're dealing in
highly distorted exaggerations, put-down references to "academic
correctness" or "those of the REDESIGN REBOL mindset", and appeals
to rock and roll as replacements for sincere (and vigorous and
humorous, too!) discussion of how to write better code in the
real world, then I have to say that it's passed the point of
diminishing returns for me.
However, I'm still quite interested in your suggestions for how
to accumulate and report character frequencies in a data file!
Thanks for all the fish!
-jn-
--
___________________________________________________________________
The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers!
- R. W. Hamming
joel'dot'neely'at'fedex'dot'com
