ProgrammerHumor
theFirstTable
credits: @the_shinji_marine
Discussion
He's obviously at 0th table.
"Starting table", probably, can be misleading.
What would a 0th something be?
First refers to the first in the list (duh). If the list is numbered from -6 to +10 then the first number is -6. There is no 0th number in that list, and no -1st number (though python programmers might insist that +10 is the -1st number). And if you have indexes or table numbers starting from 0 then the first is obviously the one labeled 0
The 0th thing would be the thing at position 0.
I disagree that 'first' inherently refers to the initial element within a list. It refers to the thing in position 1. It's just that usually we are implicitly using a 1 indexed list so in the vast majority of cases these two are the same.
Being at index 0 is being the first item. 0 indexing is about offset, not position. list[0] is the 1st item.
If I have the numbers -2, -1, 0, 1, which of those is the first number? If I have the indexes 0, 1, 2, 3, which of those is the first index? If one of those lists now forms the indexes of the other list, how would your answer change? Both in the case of a[-2] = 0, a[-1] = 1, etc. and a[0] =-2, a[1] = -1, etc.
Those answers are all really simple if you view first as the initial element, or the element with the lowest position. If you make it dependent on the position numbers then the answers get really strange, and I'm not sure you could even tell which of 0,1,2,3 is the first if I don't first tell you if I start numbering them at 1, 0 or -2.
If I have the numbers -2, -1, 0, 1, which of those is the first number?
It depends on the context. First, I'm assuming you mean those numbers are the items themselves and not the indicies. And then, because this is a casual conversation, I'm assuming that you are implicitly using one-based numbering. So probably -2. But both of those are assumptions, and for instance, if that was an list in python, then -1.
If one of those lists now forms the indexes of the other list, how would your answer change? Both in the case of a[-2] = 0, a[-1] = 1, etc. and a[0] =-2, a[1] = -1, etc.
It doesn't matter what they map to. If you have for some odd reason chosen to use a mapping where indexes begin at a negative number, then the first element is whichever element is in position 1. Wherever that position may be.
I don't really see how it's any more complicated to say that "first" means "the thing in position one". To do anything else is to implicitly redefine any list as being 1 indexed when referring to it, regardless of what it actually is. And I feel doing so creates ambiguity. Like, if someone is helping another person with their code, and says they need the first element of a given list for their task, I feel it is more natural for that person to then type MyList[1] rather than MyList[0] based on that direction. Which if the person giving the advice is using your interpretation of "first", would be misinterpreting them in any 0-indexing language. And this seems more counterintuitive and confusing to me, and the natural interpretation to grab element 1 is correct if you use mine.
and I'm not sure you could even tell which of 0,1,2,3 is the first if I don't first tell you if I start numbering them at 1, 0 or -2.
This is not generally a problem, because if someone does not specify what numbering they are using, then it can almost always be safely assumed that they are using standard one-based indexing. But if someone does specify that they are using any other numbering system, then it's less ambiguous to not coerce it into that.
Nope, I'm just using a different one of the definitions listed.
- Coming right after the zeroth in things that use zero-based numbering.
Oh, I can't fucking read.
The first table, but according to what sorting order?
indexed, so I guess in memory order?
Descending one. There’re two tables only.
Gimme proper directions.
Meanwhile bro:
Wouldn't the 0th table be the first anyway?
yeah, this one didn't land for me either. I see the intent, but other variants on the joke do it better.
I always go for the compromise. So i am .5 indexed.
he is right
“Love advice from the duke of hell” is peak meme potential
It deserves to be repeated: indexing != counting.
he would have met her if he use R
This is such a dogshit meme. Can mods start banning these 🙏
What if I'm a Lua or VB6 dev?
1st, not 0th
FIRST IS 0th!!
No, first is 1st, zeroth is 0th. And arrays start at 0th index.
Rare win for Lua users
yeah because it gets them away from lua
No girl remembered Fortran
Luama balls lmao
Every time I use Python my brain thinks I am still using Lua and counting it like it's normal
She should have asked him to meet at table index 0
I always say 0th to avoid these situations.
so you call index 1 the first item?
Zeroth index.
Firsteth index.
Secondeth index.
To avoid confusion I tend to say the item at index 1
But 0 is the first index