|
|
Tom Arneson |
|
land surveyor |
|
I have no problem with J fixing index origin at 0. |
|
|
|
|
Leigh Halliwell |
|
mathematics |
|
Occasionally the zero index-origin trips me up; however, it’s one of the peculiarities of the language that I accept in order to use the power of J. |
|
|
|
|
Jim Russell |
|
developer with no formal training |
|
Having always considered an index as a way to express an offset from the “first” item, a 0 index origin is, to me, the only sensible option. |
|
|
|
|
Devon McCormick |
|
developer with little formal training |
|
I find index origin 0 to be the sensible choice, especially given that we can use _1 to index the last element of an array. |
|
|
|
|
June Kim |
|
? |
|
I am okay with index origin 0. … some of my friends, whom I would call ordinary domain experts without much experience in programming, felt uncomfortable about it, at least in the beginning. |
|
|
|
|
Bo Jacoby |
|
? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
R.E. Boss |
|
mathematician |
|
The main reason I would prefer an index origin of 1 is because I expect the first, second, third, ... element to have index 1, 2, 3, ... |
|
|
|
|
Harvey Hahn |
|
education, music, etc. |
|
Personally, I’ve always felt that a 0-origin was an awkward concept … There are lots of things in life you don’t like, but you learn to live with them. To me, 0-origin is one of them. |
|
|
|
|
Henry Rich |
|
software |
|
I think index origin 0 is perfect. What we need is a terminology to replace “first, second, ...etc”. |
|
|
|
|
Eldon Eller |
|
EE |
|
Initially the zero origin bit me once in while, but it was a most a minor and transitory annoyance. |
|
|
|
|
Neville Holmes |
|
systems engineer
college teacher |
|
I taught J for a decade or more and can’t recall any problems with fixed origin 0 either in teaching or in student project work. |
|
|
|
|
Graham Parkhouse |
|
civil engineer |
|
I always used ⎕io as 1 in APL, so moving to J, this was a major difficulty for me. I accept that supplying the choice of 0 or 1 is not a great idea. |
|
|
|
|
Steven Taylor |
|
? |
|
As strange as it sounds, no choice (with a, “it’s less error prone + more elegant” hunch esp. when working with others) gives me a disproportionate amount of clarity and confidence. |
|
|
|
|
Zsbán Ambrus |
|
mathematics |
|
I am disqualified from the survey, and I find zero based indexing much more convenient that one based indexing. |
|
|
|
|
Michel Dumontier |
|
mathematics |
|
… this fact [index origin 0] was accepted (acquis in french) for me and I believed the topic closed. |
|
|
|
|
Joey Tuttle |
|
physics, EE, engineering maths |
|
I am happy that j has a single/fixed index origin and that it is 0. |
|
|
|
|
Ian Shannon |
|
environmental science |
|
0 is the right choice — it make the calculation of indexes cleaner … |
|
|
|
|
Chris Burke |
|
finance, insurance |
|
Since people are born at age 0, and durations start at time 0, then ⎕io 0 is very much better than ⎕io 1. Indeed, I would say that incorrect adjustments for ⎕io 1 (e.g. dat[16] not recognized as the value for age/duration 15) was the primary reason for program bugs in that business. |
|
|
|
|
Fraser Jackson |
|
econometrics
statistics |
|
I find J fine as it is with a fixed origin 0. |
|
|
|
|
Pablo Landherr |
|
finance |
|
The choice of a fixed value for index origin in general and 0 in particular have made a slight majority of problems easier to code in J compared to APL (where I did most problem solving prior to J). |
|
|
|
|
David Porter |
|
EE |
|
Having the index origin set to zero is not a great loss, but it did add one more annoyance to learning the language. |
|
|
|
|
Patrick van Beek |
|
actuary |
|
I find index 0 difficult to work when working with arrays in the abstract … but in my work I don’t find origin 0 a hindrance. |
|
|
|
|
Alex Rufon |
|
economics |
|
… a fixed value of 0 is not a hindrance to my work. |
|
|