0-indexed vs 1-indexed

when i first worked with arrays, it took me some time to realize they are the only objects that are accessed with an index starting at 0 for the first element, while all the other plugins goe to some length to have any first element indexed by 1.

i was guessing that you (the devs) did this to keep in line with the idea of 'simplified' programming, since 0-indexed stuff is admittedly a reoccuring source of (human) errors.

but since most of the medium-and-above-complexity events / conditions & expressions that are often used in working with lists of objects are centered around 0 as a starting point (e.g. the LoopIndex, the random() expression), all the 1-indexed plugins actually generate more complexity by demanding extra attention to treat them different.

so i was wondering if you are planning to strictly implement everything as 1-indexed, or if that is a notion you would open to negotiations :)

I've changed Array to 1 based. Not sure why it wasn't changed before.

Developers using Array will need to review their code; it won't crash, but it'll return nothing if you call 0, as it'll be out of bounds.

I think everything in Construct should be 1-based index. 0-based makes sense in low-level programming, but for Construct, it's just more intuitive to have everything 1-based.

I think it's worth seriously considering making Random() return 1-N instead of 0-(N-1) for the same reasons. However I can imagine that breaking a lot of stuff. What do you think?

Also, I thought LoopIndex was 1-based already - if you find anything like that which is 0-based, report it as a bug and I'll correct it back to 1-based.

I'm not sure Random should be 1 based. There's genuine reason to generate between 0 and 1, and as you say, it'll break alot of things.

How about an option to have random not use 0?

Clearly there are uses for both, but personally I'd prefer to have it not start with zero.

Then again, I wish I could use decimals for a lot of stuff, but I don't see that happening.

Why not just do Random(N) +1?

so instead of 0,1,2, you would get 1,2,3.

I like having 0 in the random number generator, but I could always do Random(N) -1 I guess...

it is more intuitive for random to return values between 1 and random's argument in brackets. ie. for random(2) the "2" argument tells that it is the maximum number returned by the random function. but as you say it'll break a lot of things, i personally prefer the old fashioned 1+random(2)

Wasn't there a plan to change the random() expression to also be able to use two values for a range? How about random(3) returns 1, 2, or 3 and random(0, 3) would return 0, 1, 2, or 3? You could have it both ways.

Yeah, after discussing it on the chat 2 parameters for a range would be much nicer.

Oops, you mean there wasn't a plan before? I'm just making up my own plans for Construct now

I think I suggested it to Ashley at some point, but it makes more sense to clear it up now than after beta .

Then I propose

random(N) returns 1 to N

and random(A, B) would return any number from A to B inclusive (so random(1, N) is the same as random(N)).

This means any cases of random(N) that currently exist must be changed to random(0, N-1). This will break a lot of things, but (hopefully) Construct will only grow more in future, so the least damaging time to do this is definitely now.

I think you should just keep the random function the same. I have quite a few things that would be half-broken.

I think you should just keep the random function the same. I have quite a few things that would be half-broken.

Your noble sacrifice is for the greater good. Waver not, and face your fate though it may be grim... for yours is the glorious death of a warrior.

> I think you should just keep the random function the same. I have quite a few things that would be half-broken.

>

Your noble sacrifice is for the greater good. Waver not, and face your fate though it may be grim... for yours is the glorious death of a warrior.

yeah, i agree. i`ll sacrifice my projects to... but besides it`s almost imposible to finish big game in construct in its current state, so it`s better to prepare matterials and ideas while waiting for 1.0.