If you love me meet me at first floor
Americans 😢 British 🤷♂️
It’s for the best
Hey, if she thinks 1 is 1st index then you
doggeddodged a bullet and deserve better.Happy now all you English majors.
you dogged a bullet
😳
maybe she’s a lua developer
🙅 zeroth, first, second, third
👉 Zerost, onest, twost, threestGood luck standardizing English
Englist*
Northern England just got a new nickname.
DROP TABLE 01;
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.
in my understanding offset is technically the “relative index”, or how much you have to go further
I still mess this up for lists in Python…
I love how they’re looking at each other
God yes, you can clearly see from the background scene that while at different tables they can clearly see each other. All this bickering is madness
This thread is a great example of why they don’t like to let (most) software developers talk to the customers.
Easy solution: Switch to table UUIDs.
This could be why Obiwan wound up a hermit? (Programmers of my generation at least talk about “Obiwan errors” because his name sounds like “off-by-one”.)
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.
programmer linguistigs is certainly something to behold.
Fun fact, Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories were and are the foundation of parsing.
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.
Plot twist, neither cared about the table number
One went to the first table produced, the other to the first table placed
What more can I say
