Anonymous user
Talk:Array: Difference between revisions
→Rework
(→Rework) |
(→Rework) |
||
Line 36:
:::: I agree that array should become a category with more than one articles in it. To me too, ''Collection'' feels quite close to ''array''. Though it is less oriented on implementation issues, and more on the interface. I believe it was introduced as an [[object-oriented|OO]]-ish substitute for more data/representation-oriented ''array''. --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 13:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:::[[wp:Array]] and [[wp:associative array]] are both well defined and ''distinct'' terms. Wikipedia has it right. A lowest-common-denominator, generic "array" is presumed to be a contiguous chunk of same-sized objects, accessed via base, index, and stride, as is supported all the way down to the instruction set in most processors. Such arrays have special syntax in most early, low-level languages. Arrays are the building-block of higher-level collections. "Associative arrays" are a class of collections which obey an array-like protocol and which could have a variety of implementations, each with different benefits. Their only similarities are name, protocol, and sometimes shared language syntax. In my opinion, they should be kept very distinct on Rosetta Code, following the example of Wikipedia. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 13:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||