Re^2: The Zeroeth Principle

If you don't have indices, you can't have slices, you can't splice, and you wouldn't be able to do a binary search, and you won't be able to use a Schwartzian Transform in the way you are used to do it now. Basically, if you give up indices, you give up random access into arrays, and you're downgrading arrays to linked lists. I'm very glad I don't program in languages that don't give me the full power of arrays.

Comment on Re^2: The Zeroeth Principle

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: The Zeroeth Principle by hardburn (Abbot) on Aug 26, 2004 at 12:34 UTC
I don't necessarily advocate getting rid of indexes entirely, only note that it's possible. You're right, it would give up some powerful features (but not Turing Completeness). "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.	[reply]
Re^4: The Zeroeth Principle by Anonymous Monk on Aug 26, 2004 at 13:00 UTC
Why stop at the possibility of getting rid of indices? One doesn't give up Turing Completeness by getting rid of arrays.	[reply]
Re^5: The Zeroeth Principle by hardburn (Abbot) on Aug 26, 2004 at 13:36 UTC
Yes, yes, we can trim down our langauges until we're all just programming Brainfck. And then I'd give up programming and go become a paralegal. My point is that in an awful lot of cases, it's actually simplier to avoid indexes. "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni*.	[reply]