Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-13 Thread Erik Hofman
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Fortran is pretty much just like BASIC but the line numbers are optional. You can get the feel of it here: http://www.westnet.com/mirrors/99bottles/beer_d_h.html#f90 What? No entry for Nasal? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-13 Thread Lee Elliott
On Thursday 13 May 2004 09:08, Erik Hofman wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: Fortran is pretty much just like BASIC but the line numbers are optional. You can get the feel of it here: http://www.westnet.com/mirrors/99bottles/beer_d_h.html#f90 What? No entry for Nasal? Erik :)

[Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Innis Cunningham
Hi Guys I am just wondering is there a very good reason that we use zero to number things in FG.Engines tanks and the like.Because in the real world of aviation nothing is numbered zero as far as I know. Why does it matter you may ask. Well it seems a bit strange that a four engined aircraft has

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Giles Robertson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 May 2004 13:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO Hi Guys I am just wondering is there a very good reason that we use zero to number things in FG.Engines tanks and the like.Because in the real world of aviation nothing is numbered zero

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Andy Ross
Innis Cunningham wrote: I am just wondering is there a very good reason that we use zero to number things in FG. Engines tanks and the like. Because in the real world of aviation nothing is numbered zero as far as I know. Why does it matter you may ask. Well it seems a bit strange that a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Ampere K. Hardraade
hmm... if FlightGear is to be as realistic as possible, it will be a good idea to simulate everything down to the very last detail. Perhaps a translator of some sort can be written? Regards, Ampere On May 12, 2004 10:31 am, Andy Ross wrote: Innis Cunningham wrote: I am just wondering is

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Andy Ross
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: hmm... if FlightGear is to be as realistic as possible, it will be a good idea to simulate everything down to the very last detail. Perhaps a translator of some sort can be written? I can't quite tell if this is a joke or not. If it is, then accept my apologies.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Bruce Finney
Andy Ross wrote: stuff cut the way software systems are expected to act. Real Programmers count from zero. Always have, always will. NOTE: FORTRAN programmers count from 1, always have, always will!!! Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Andy Ross
Bruce Finney wrote: Andy Ross wrote: Real Programmers count from zero. Always have, always will. NOTE: FORTRAN programmers count from 1, always have, always will!!! So we agree. :) Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread David Megginson
Bruce Finney wrote: the way software systems are expected to act. Real Programmers count from zero. Always have, always will. NOTE: FORTRAN programmers count from 1, always have, always will!!! Does that apply to both of them? All the best, David

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Jonathan Richards
On Thursday 13 May 2004 12:51 am, Bruce Finney wrote: Andy Ross wrote: stuff cut the way software systems are expected to act. Real Programmers count from zero. Always have, always will. NOTE: FORTRAN programmers count from 1, always have, always will!!! ...and APL

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Jonathan Richards
On Thursday 13 May 2004 12:57 am, David Megginson wrote: Bruce Finney wrote: the way software systems are expected to act. Real Programmers count from zero. Always have, always will. NOTE: FORTRAN programmers count from 1, always have, always will!!! Does that apply to both of

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Al West
On Thursday 13 May 2004 01:24, Jonathan Richards wrote: There's still lots of scientific stuff in Fortran. And there are plenty of Zeroth laws in science. Cheers, Al ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread David Megginson
Jonathan Richards wrote: Oi! Somewhere here I've got a stack of Hollerith cards with my first ever program, in Fortran, on it. Not Fortran77, though, because I punched it sometime in 1974. Yes, I wrote my first programs in Fortran as well -- I was 13 in 1977, and used to sneak into the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Innis Cunningham
Ok Andy I thought this maybe the case but I guess I was hopeing against hope that it was not. Cheers Innis Andy Ross writes This can't be fixed. The underlying software engines (property system, C++, Nasal, all of it really) all use zero based indexing in accordance with (very) long standing

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO

2004-05-12 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Oh... I have to learn Fortran next year. Fortran is pretty much just like BASIC but the line numbers are optional. You can get the feel of it here: http://www.westnet.com/mirrors/99bottles/beer_d_h.html#f90 Curt. -- Curtis Olson