Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!nzpost1.xs4all.net!not-for-mail
Return-Path: <python@mrabarnett.plus.com>
X-Original-To: python-list@python.org
Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000
X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:Python': 0.05; 'that?': 0.05; 'default.': 0.07; 'bounds.': 0.09; 'indexes': 0.09; 'iterate': 0.09; 'loop.': 0.09; 'bound,': 0.16; 'declaration': 0.16; 'from:addr:mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'from:addr:python': 0.16; 'from:name:mrab': 0.16; 'imo.': 0.16; 'iterating': 0.16; 'message-id:@mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'reason.': 0.16; 'received:192.168.1.4': 0.16; 'verbose': 0.16; 'worst': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'programmer': 0.18; 'language': 0.19; '>>>': 0.20; '2015': 0.20; 'pascal': 0.22; 'sep': 0.22; 'programming': 0.22; 'am,': 0.23; 'thus': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'example': 0.26; 'rest': 0.26; 'specify': 0.27; 'correct': 0.28; 'array': 0.29; 'e.g.': 0.30; "i'd": 0.31; 'fixed': 0.31; 'option': 0.31; "can't": 0.32; 'languages': 0.34; 'tue,': 0.34; 'but': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'basic': 0.36; 'visual': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'say': 0.37; 'means': 0.39; 'goes': 0.39; 'sure': 0.39; 'received:192': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'where': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'default': 0.61; 'different': 0.63; 'believe': 0.66; 'upper': 0.76; '99.9%': 0.84
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=CvRCCSMD c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:117 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=EBOSESyhAAAA:8 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=SGBCz-xq5GjQ-d87lO4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
X-AUTH: mrabarnett@:2500
Subject: Re: Python handles globals badly.
To: python-list@python.org
References: <c3363$547e74fe$5419aafe$24179@news.ziggo.nl> <86fa425b-d660-45ba-b0f7-3beebdec8e14@googlegroups.com> <CALwzid=sokeEcPA17yP=Npscg4VSJ6AaF_AMn13ypCr-BtVgwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK_ErkjJ8ZYhtAoOC0p-DRpd5JQfb6aGWgU2T6uW5ZLtxjY2Mg@mail.gmail.com> <55EE9EEC.1060907@rece.vub.ac.be> <CAK_ErkgQPBxSc+zs7c2tGpGgQQ7s_SsAyJFB6qwcvJg68B9g0w@mail.gmail.com> <CALwzidkyAEGiLT--0XpFesmCv8yM6S9t-JXVLJsBTN0UoWGmhA@mail.gmail.com>
From: MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:41:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALwzidkyAEGiLT--0XpFesmCv8yM6S9t-JXVLJsBTN0UoWGmhA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post: <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help: <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.229.1441734109.8327.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace: 1441734109 news.xs4all.nl 23776 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:56109
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:96138

On 2015-09-08 15:31, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Vladimir Ignatov <kmisoft@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I had some experience programming in Lua and I'd say - that language
>>>> is bad example to follow.
>>>> Indexes start with 1  (I am not kidding)
>>>
>>> What is so bad about that?
>>
>> It's different from the rest 99.9% of languages for no particular reason.
>
> It's not "different from the rest 99.9% of languages". There are many
> languages that use 1-based indexing, e.g. Matlab, Pascal, Fortran.
>
In Pascal you specify both the lower and the upper bounds.

> None of those are even the worst offender here, IMO. That honor goes
> to Visual Basic 6, where the default lower bound is 0, but the
> programmer has the option of declaring an array to use any lower bound
> they want, or even globally change the default. As a result you have
> to look up the array declaration to know the lower bound, and even
> then you can't be sure if it's not explicit. The correct way to
> iterate over a loop in VB 6 is thus not "FOR i = 0 TO n-1", but "FOR i
> = LBound(arr) TO UBound(arr)" which is overly verbose and means that
> you can't even be sure what indexes you're actually iterating over
> inside the loop.
>
> I believe this wart is fixed in VB .NET.
>