[Rhymer]

Bald statement: Option base could be used in ANY programming language but should default to base 1.
(optional)
Bald statement: True should ONLY be a +1. (positive only)

I almost always create my variables in base 1. The only other time I could think of is when I create my own stack or recursion routines which would have to be two different sets of variables (basically 2 stacks). I've never mixed the two, sounds ugly (shiver).
The difference/difficulty is only in remembering which are zero based or the ones that I create which are almost always 1 based.

Who likes zero based and who likes one based arrays?

[AdamSpeight2008]

Zero Based

Why do you prefer One-Base Indexing?

Show us an example of the code you write.

This post has been edited by AdamSpeight2008: 24 February 2012 - 03:55 PM

[Rhymer]

I need 2 or 5 or 60 or 199 ...Integer good for 32,768 (-1)

dim variable(20) as integer 'rem I know long has no processor penalty I just like int
for i=1 to 16 'less than max '16 is likely a variable
    '....execute stuff
next

A benefit I like is to use the zero element of the array to hold a last used index or element.
That makes for tighter code. I have written working code of 8 bytes. (boast smiley)

[AdamSpeight2008]

Rhymer, on 25 February 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

A benefit I like is to use the zero element of the array to hold a last used index or element.

This only works for Numeric Types

For the follow examples, that strategy won't work.

Dim myString(9) As  String
Dim myClasses(9) As ComplexType

If everything is 0-based you don't have remember, if the collection is or isn't.
One based Arrays are a was of memory space, if the type is large in bytes.


Plus it's not that hard to write a "wrapper" around the array, which implements Last Accessed Index.

Spoiler

Public Class ArrayWithLastIndex(Of T)
  Private _Ts() As T
  Private _LastAccessedIndex As Integer 
  Public Sub New(Size As Integer(
    ReDim _Ts(Size)
  End Sub
  Public Default Property Index( i As Integer)
    Get
      _LastAccessedIndex = i
      Return _TS(i) 
    End Get
    Set(Value As T)
      _TS(i) = Value
      _LastAccessedIndex = i
    End Get
    Public ReadOnly Property LastAccessedIndex As Integer
      Get
        Return _LastAccessedIndex 
      End Get
    End Property 
End Class

Then have this class implement IEnumerable(OF T) and wham your got LINQ support.

This post has been edited by AdamSpeight2008: 24 February 2012 - 04:55 PM

[Rhymer]

Quote

This only works for Numeric Types

No, it works for any array that does not hold a value in its 0'th (zero'th) element.

Quote

If everything is 0-based you don't have remember

That is the problem with LOTS of VB's controls. I wish they would have a zero based array but START their element insertion at 1 (one).

Quote

One based Arrays are a was of memory space

I absolutely agree.
and especially as the array and its type gets bigger as you say too.

Quote

it's not that hard to write a "wrapper" around the array

I'll have to admit your class 'wrapper' is over my head.

Bold statement: Not counting commenting (which can grow quite large), about a minimum1/3 of a (any size?) ROBUST program will be used for: check for errors, incorrect type input, divide by zero, beyond type limit (either in value or length or both), assure proper directory and file name and other non-MEAT program material overhead.

Why would, ahem. When would it be beneficial to use a class and (drum roll please), why?
I also have trouble with OOP or/and encapsulation. I understand the concept though but not their difference. I suppose my scope is limited but I learn and, more importantly, I have fun while I write programs.
Bold statement: implementing your own stack is better than Llambda (Lisp)

[supersloth]

[AdamSpeight2008]

All the standard .net collections are Zero Indexed based.
It's flexible enough that if you want One-Indexed based you can be implementing the correct interface.
Indexers

[ccubed]

Rhymer, on 24 February 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Bald statement: True should ONLY be a +1. (positive only)

Just thought I'd tackle this one by making it even more benign. You want true to only be one? Define it as such. You want true to be 0? You can do that. You want true to be 3/2? I can totally do that.

Point being: True and False are definitions that you can change to whatever you want in any coding language. However, the logical definition of true in our case is !0. It is not any number, it is not any positive number, it is not any negative number, it is: Any number BUT 0. That's the only case for true.

You know what False's definition is? It's !True.

So in other words, in programming.

True: !0
False: !True (!(!0))

Rhymer, on 24 February 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Who likes zero based and who likes one based arrays?[/size]

Zero, because one based arrays are an annoyance that should burn. Bytes start at 0, Binary starts at 0, arrays should start at 0 because the first number in binary is not 1, it's 0.

[Neku]

but sometimes base 1 is needed
in VB6 when you declare arry like this:

Dim Arr(5)

it will hold 6 elements (0,1,2,3,4,5)

but with Option base 1 turned on it will hold 5 (1,2,3,4,5)

[AdamSpeight2008]

vb6 is dead, it's hanging around like a undead zombie.

We talking a modern vb.net.

[supersloth]

oh man i got my threads all confused. i thought someone deleted my puppy picture and it was just in a different thread. OH WELL MORE PUPPIES FOR EVERYONE.

[ccubed]

Neku, on 01 March 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

but sometimes base 1 is needed
in VB6 when you declare arry like this:

Dim Arr(5)

it will hold 6 elements (0,1,2,3,4,5)

but with Option base 1 turned on it will hold 5 (1,2,3,4,5)

...No, either one holds 5. Arr(5) is an array of five items regardless of starting at 0 or 1.

[AdamSpeight2008]

ccubed, on 02 March 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

However, the logical definition of true in our case is !0. It is not any number, it is not any positive number, it is not any negative number, it is: Any number BUT 0. That's the only case for true.

You know what False's definition is? It's !True.

So in other words, in programming.

True: !0
False: !True (!(!0))

Your premise is only True if your doing Value Comparisons.
Which is a differet operation Not-Equal To to Not

 True:= Value ≠ 0
False:= Value = 0

Which holds true for values, but not on a strictly binary view.
Computer languages (Assembly and up) use in general Two-Complements representation for Integer Numbers.
The value for

False:= 0     
 True:= -1  

Boolean Values are of represent by the bits in the word size of the processor. 32bits system it int32.
-1 since that is result of Flipping (NOT) all of the bits on Zero (in 2-Complement representation.) At a logic gate level is simple to reduce this to 1 or 2 gates.
False:= Nor( B₀ ... B_n)
True:= And( B₀ ... B_n)

So when you say Not Zero, which do mean?

This post has been edited by AdamSpeight2008: 03 March 2012 - 02:31 PM

[ccubed]

AdamSpeight2008, on 03 March 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

So when you say Not Zero, which do mean?

Value Comparisons which is what I assumed the OP was talking about.

[Curtis Rutland]

Why the hell is anyone trying to have a constructive programming discussion in the Caffeine Lounge? I'm moving this to the Cubicle.