This thread is a great example of why they don’t like to let (most) software developers talk to the customers.
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
1401 points (98.5% liked)
Programmer Humor
32070 readers
550 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
No, NO! She said the FIRST table. Not table ONE. Why are women like this???? /s
Even if the table is correct the instruction needs to be more precise. Is it table header or table body and in which table column?
IS THIS Love Advice From the Great Duke of Hell??
(it's a webcomic, I loved the story)
Hey, if she thinks 1 is 1st index then you ~~dogged~~ dodged a bullet and deserve better.
Happy now all you English majors.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wouldn't it be nice if documentation used the words index and offset consistently?
Aren't those two the same thing? At least in C-style arrays, which might not be how they're handled under the hood, but is at least how most languages present it to the programmer.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
What more can I say
Also the plot of Before Sunset 🏆
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.
I feel like the joke would've landed better if it said "first". I know it's pronounced the same way, but I'm gonna argue anyway that there's a subtle difference. I've heard 0th used in cs to describe what was at the 0-index, so in that context 1st would be"second", but "first" generally means "nothing before it". English is weird. I wonder if anyone knows whether the word "first" or "1st" came 1st (lol)?
Ordinal vs. cardinal. It's "first" not "onest", right? Even the ancient proto-Germanic speakers could tell there's a difference. (In fact, it's basically a contraction of "foremost", and has nothing to do with numbers; their weak numeracy was an advantage on this topic)
If we weren't implicitly choosing 1-indexing it would be 1nd for "second" (and still not "onend" or something). That breaks down once you get to third and fourth, though.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They said 1st as an abbreviation of first (it's a normal abbreviation 1st, 2nd, 3rd ... 7th abbreviate first, second, third ... seventh)
Sure, but you have to see how it's an own goal if you're showing up to table 0.
load more comments
(2 replies)
She is right, using 0 index for physical stuff is stupid.
Your rulers start at 1? That sounds annoying.
Your job is to move apples from one bin to another. You pick up the first one and set it in the other bin, and say "zero."?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›