From: Steven Lumos <steven@...>
Date: 2007-07-20T03:46:11+09:00
Subject: Re: The Pebble in the Ruby Shoe

Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:10:22AM +0900, Steven Lumos wrote:
>> SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> writes:
>> > I disagree. Zero based arrays are natural to a mathematician, and
>> > programmers tend to be mathematicians.
>> 
>> No! This is a systematic lie used to defend a convention that was
>> adopted for purely practical reasons.  It's like claiming that
>> segmented memory is more natural to mathematicians.  Mathematicians
>> and even Computer Scientists consistently use 1, e.g.
>
> Yes and no.  I wouldn't call it "systematic", but it's certainly a
> falsehood, even if propagated largely by accident or with innocent
> misunderstanding.  Excepting in the sense that one can regard computer
> science as an alternate and self-contained mathematics, quite distinct
> from the mainstream "mathematics" field of study, programmers are not so
> universally mathematicians as so many people seem so convinced they are.
>
> The fact that mathematicians these days tend to end up being programmers
> does not translate to programmers tending to be mathematicians.  This is
> not a one-to-one correspondence.
>
> As you say, the zero-based array is a practical matter related to the
> work of programming (as well as being related to the applicability of set
> theory to language design), and not a convenience for those wacky
> mathematicians with their nonstandard way of counting (kind of a strange
> claim to make).  In contrast with your implication that this is somehow a
> *bad* practical decision, however, it's actually the case that, by and
> large, the benefits for natural sequential operations in programming and
> the in-built compatibility of zero-based arrays with certain concepts of
> set theory add up to a strikingly practical, and quite positive, reason
> for zero-based arrays.

Not only did I not mean to imply that, but I'm not sure I can even
parse "bad practical decision".  If I knew the evidence I had implied
in support of my implied claim then maybe I could. :-)

But I even explicitly said that "It's a good and safe decision
supported by decades of computing convention and habit..."

> In other words, your premises are largely correct, but they do not lead
> to the conclusions you seem to suggest.

I'm just sick of hearing that Ruby does such and such because
mathematicians like it.

Steve