Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 :) Noticed there wasn't one for INTERCAL either - probably a good job too. http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/intercal-man/s02.html LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
Because 0 is used in computing, if not aeronautics. (Small explanation for the non-technical: Originally, for complex and obscure technical reasons, array elements were numbered (indexed) starting at 0. This is still the case for c c++ and most other languages. There is no real reason for doing so at present that I've ever found, apart from tradition. That said, some of the fastest binary tree implementations take advantage of this, but with the processing power we play with these days it can't be really relevant) Giles Robertson -Original Message- From: Innis Cunningham [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 as far as I know. Why does it matter you may ask. Well it seems a bit strange that a four engined aircraft has engines numbered 0-3 and a three engined aircraft has engines numbered 0-2 and so on. As FG grows and more systems are added it would seem to me that the confusion could multiply. Is there a good reason that we do this and how hard would it be to change. I guess this applies to the FDM's to. Cheers Innis _ Personalise your phone with chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to http://ringtones.com.au/ninemsn/control?page=/ninemsn/main.jsp ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 four engined aircraft has engines numbered 0-3 and a three engined aircraft has engines numbered 0-2 and so on. As FG grows and more systems are added it would seem to me that the confusion could multiply. 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 software engineering convention. There's no reason the user should ever be exposed to internal indexing anyway, so the best we can do is present a consistent picture to the developers. As confused as you might be, I assure you it would only be worse if we all had to remember which subsystem used which array indexing convention. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 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 engines numbered 0-3 and a three engined aircraft has engines numbered 0-2 and so on. As FG grows and more systems are added it would seem to me that the confusion could multiply. 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 software engineering convention. There's no reason the user should ever be exposed to internal indexing anyway, so the best we can do is present a consistent picture to the developers. As confused as you might be, I assure you it would only be worse if we all had to remember which subsystem used which array indexing convention. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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. In the real world, you don't use a property browser to configure your engine. Nor do real landing gear behave differently when the pilots secretly start referring to them with different indexing conventions. (Whatever you do, don't call the nose gear 'zero', it doesn't like that...) When you do realistic things like move levers, push buttons, and examine stuff in the cockpit, the FlightGear behavior should be expected to match real life. When you peek under the hood with the property browser and/or configure the simulator via XML files, you are looking at a software system, not an aircraft. IMHO, it should act the way software systems are expected to act. Real Programmers count from zero. Always have, always will. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Bruce Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Auburn, WA ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 programmers can choose, by assigning a value to the system variable IO (index origin). The default is 1, though. Sorry, Andy! Jonathan ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 them? 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. There's still lots of scientific stuff in Fortran. Regards Jonathan ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 Queen's University computer centre at night with a, well, borrowed password, to run my card batches. I dropped a big pile of cards on my second visit, giving me my first lesson in the importance of good interfaces. Later that year my high school got a TRS-80 with BASIC, and I never looked back. Sure, the language was not optimal, but I didn't have any cards to drop and I could write video games for the other kids to play. There's still lots of scientific stuff in Fortran. There's still lots of business stuff in COBOL. Old code never dies: it just becomes someone else's problem. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 software engineering convention. There's no reason the user should ever be exposed to internal indexing anyway, so the best we can do is present a consistent picture to the developers. As confused as you might be, I assure you it would only be worse if we all had to remember which subsystem used which array indexing convention. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel _ SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here: http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Why ZERO
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 Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
