Re: [OT] Debugging, Ye Olde-Tyme Waye, Kind Of

docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>> I was taught, lo, those many years ago, that 'all good programmers
>>> start counting at zero. COBOL programs start counting at one...
>>> draw your own conclusions.'
>>
>> COBOL programs start counting at one? Sayeth who?
>
> My error and apologies for the sloppy terminology; what I intended to
> convey was that in COBOL the initial element of a table is referred to
> with a subscript of one.

Izallright. COBOL was invented before zero.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] Debugging, Ye Olde-Tyme Waye, Kind Of
    ... COBOL programs start counting at one... ... > Reminds me of my first compile, ... It seems the first statement was ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: [OT] Debugging, Ye Olde-Tyme Waye, Kind Of
    ... >>>One must also be careful to watch for zero relative counters. ... >>>record is Record 0, but you don't pay attention to that, then you'll land in ... COBOL programs start counting at one... ... >COBOL programs start counting at one? ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: [OT] Debugging, Ye Olde-Tyme Waye, Kind Of
    ... It is good to pay attention to ... >>One must also be careful to watch for zero relative counters. ... COBOL programs start counting at one... ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: D3/Linux compile question
    ... There is no element of anything that is number zero. ... By the way she did not break the plates that comes after ... And, I was not counting babies, I was ... depending upon the numbering convention. ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: D3/Linux compile question
    ... timeline is zero, not one. ... Remember that we are counting discrete elements and there can be no ... the plates for a wedding. ... The numbering scheme of the array _has no impact_ on the size ...
    (comp.databases.pick)