Rust dev, I enjoy reading and playing games, I also usually like to spend time with friends.

You can reach me on mastodon @sukhmel@mastodon.online or telegram @sukhmel@tg

  • 6 Posts
  • 1.85K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle




  • lad@programming.devtoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlOff by one solitude
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”

    This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.

    You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.

    Edit: spelling

    Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least






  • I think, the idea was along the lines of “because C++ was not memory-safe, and it has to stay compatible with how it was, there are still a lot of ways to not write memory-safely”

    This makes sense, there are memory-safely features available but there are a lot of programmers that will never willingly use that features, because the olden ways are surely better

    Other than that, I agree, when you’re paid to fix an unfixable problem you will probably claim something like that and advocate for your solution being the only one that solves this








  • To be fair, I disagree with all the points author makes, except for performance which is important but may be less important than code clarity in different cases. I am surprised that exceptions perform that well, and I am surprised the author said that compared C++ exceptions to Rust results, but actually did the right thing and compared C++ exceptions with C++ expected first. I thought it was going to be one of those “let’s compare assembly to lisp”