No command line args, just change the global const and recompile
Nah, don't use global variables, magic values everywhere. And don't use const whatsoever, we need to move fast and break things, we can't let something immutable stop us
Elon Musk will fund the development of KKK++, a programming language that will bring us back to the good old times before "GOTOs considered harmful" dropped, because real programmers not only do away with memory safety, but structured programming too.
Writing Lua code that also interacts with C code that uses 0 indexing is an awful experience. Annoys me to this day even though haven't used it for 2 years
So what's 0 do then? I'm okay with wacky indexes (I've used something with negative indexes for a end-index shorthand) but 0 has to mean something that's actually useful. Using the index as the offset into the array seems to be the most useful way to index them.
Hey now, you know that according to the Bible the biggest number is a million. Anything larger than that including infinity is some of that "woke shit".
NGL, this kind of form of putting the decisions the monkey-in-charge is making in a way experts in a field will understand, is a very good way to showcase the absurdity.
TL;DR: For historical reasons stacks growing down is defined in hardware on some CPUs (notably x86). On other CPUs like some ARM chips for example you (or more likely your compiler's developer) can technically choose which direction stacks go but not conforming to the historical standard is the choice of a madman.
Pretty sure that it’s something a long the lines of “stack begins high, grows down, while heap behind low grows high” when they meet, it’s a stack overflow
Im unfamiliar with this as well. If you are allocating memory for a stack, why does it matter which direction it populates data? Is this just a convention?
I asked deepseek: Downward-growing stacks** are more common in many architectures (e.g., x86, ARM). This convention originated from early computer architectures and has been carried forward for consistency.
Funny, I can't remember, because I did a lot of assembler.
Arrays not starting at 1 bother me. I think the entrenched 0-based index is more important than any major push to use 1 instead, but if I could go back in time and change it I would.