this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
1464 points (98.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

32464 readers
315 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Entropywins 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I work with juniper switches 0 is my 1

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Fuck juniper fr though

[–] ikidd 0 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Why the fuck would you spell it "1st" if it's not 1?

Edit: Which is not pronounced "onest". I think people might be missing the point here; I'm actually a fan of zero indexing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They said 1st as an abbreviation of first (it's a normal abbreviation 1st, 2nd, 3rd ... 7th abbreviate first, second, third ... seventh)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Sure, but you have to see how it's an own goal if you're showing up to table 0.

[–] ElectricMoose 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Interestingly, we've got the same glitch in the Gregorian calendar, where the year 0 doesn't exist. So the 21st century started in 2001…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yup. We should really zero-index century names and years AD/BC as well, but we don't. If we were still using Roman numerals it would be no big deal, but we rarely do, so there's a confusing clash. I'm not sure if it was this programming humour community or another where I had a big exchange on the topic before.

I suppose you could have some kind of positional system that's one-indexed, so 999AD = 1111999AD, and 2000 would be written 2111, but you'd have to completely redo the way arithmetic works, and that defeats the point a bit. And, the new 999 would not be our 999, because it's effectively base 9.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›