• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

0 or 1

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 464
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Which do you prefer 0 or 1?

Personally the negativity of 0 appeals to me.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 305
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Nick Leaver:
Personally the negativity of 0 appeals to me.



0 is neither negative or positive. Its the ulitmate wishy washy number. Its screws up calculations all the time. There is no other number that requires special programming.

1 is bit of a pain sometimes too, but no where near what brother 0 is.

I dis-like 1 less than i dis-like 0.

How's that for negative?
[ January 12, 2005: Message edited by: Ray Marsh ]
 
pie sneak
Posts: 4727
Mac VI Editor Ruby
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I prefer 0. I believe it holds its ground a little better than 1 when mingling in floating-point world.

It also doesn't force the other numbers to be something they are not. I wish more numbers could be like 0.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1400
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
0

.. not sure why though !
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
0 is neither negative or positive. Its the ulitmate wishy washy number.

Not at all. It is a perfectly balanced constant.
 
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24207
46
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
0 is more well-rounded, while 1 is kind of... well, one-dimensional.
 
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
0 is a little pudgy for me. 1, despite being a little prickly, is tall and slim - just the way I like my numbers.
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Definitely 1. Almost as beautiful as alef.
 
Rancher
Posts: 13459
Android Eclipse IDE Ubuntu
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Something is better than nothing.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 243
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
1
 
David O'Meara
Rancher
Posts: 13459
Android Eclipse IDE Ubuntu
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
0 is neither negative or positive. Its the ulitmate wishy washy number.
I assume we're talking 2's Compliment?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Zero is hero of numbers, because it defines the beginning, the centre and the end.

If we ever determine the absolute centre of the universe, what would be its coordinates? (0,0,0,...) (Add a '0' for every dimension known to man).
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I prefer 0 because it makes me say "Oh". On the other hand people often say that 1's won.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1258
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Maybe it's because of my C++ days, but 1 is definitely better than 0.
 
Marc Peabody
pie sneak
Posts: 4727
Mac VI Editor Ruby
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
5 is right out.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
1 is the lonliest number.
 
Bartender
Posts: 1152
20
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Oracle Spring VI Editor Tomcat Server Redhat Java Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Zero, it gives the Mathematicians / Physicians something [or is that nothing] to think about
See what I mean: The Beginning of Time
[ January 13, 2005: Message edited by: Peter Rooke ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1071
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'd have to go with 0. It's a newer number.
 
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic