@IceWolf@masto.brightfur.net @roxy@chitter.xyz @sodiboo@gaysex.cloud js calls that an "array" bevause thats what it is : a contiguous slice of same size values (pointers) , pointing to arbitrary values .

@lizzie @fiore @roxy @sodiboo I don't know if any have ones that aren't constant time. But whether they're constant time or not is an implementation detail. Whether it's an array or not is how you use it, right? Why would it stop being an array if you change how it's implemented? That wouldn't make any sense.

@IceWolf @fiore @roxy @sodiboo why is his even worth arguing about if you dont even have a counterexample for it to matter

@IceWolf @fiore @roxy @sodiboo also performance characteristics is famously a consequential part of data structures what

@IceWolf @fiore @roxy @sodiboo like i can implement a map using an array of keys and values and just iterate through for lookup.

its not a hashmap though, bc structures do actually have characteristics besides their interfaces (even excluding performance)

@lizzie @fiore @roxy @sodiboo It may not be a hashmap, but it is a dictionary.

@IceWolf@masto.brightfur.net @lizzie @roxy@chitter.xyz @sodiboo@gaysex.cloud the point here being ?

@fiore @lizzie @sodiboo The point being, there's a difference between "contiguous C-style array" and "array". You can implement arrays using the C kind of array, but you don't have to, and if you do it another way you might wind up with a shitty array, but it'd still be an array, just a shitty one.

@IceWolf@masto.brightfur.net @lizzie @sodiboo@gaysex.cloud if youre trying to say that a utf8 string then is just "an array of utf8 scalars" then i am sorry but it is just plain wrong and i dont see the point in arguing about it tbh

@IceWolf @fiore @roxy @sodiboo also performance characteristics is famously a consequential part of data structures what

@fiore @lizzie @sodiboo I mean, I don't see why

["w", "o", "l", "f", ""]

wouldn't be an array?

(see: Ruby's String.chars method)

@lizzie@brain.worm.pink @fiore@brain.worm.pink @IceWolf@masto.brightfur.net I think there is an important distinction to be made between an abstract collection and an actual data structure.

like a "dictionary"/"map" or a "set" or a "finite sequence" are not data structures. they are kinds of collections with a specific interface, and they don't have specific performance characteristics. but an array or linked list are two different concrete data structures of a fixed-length sequence that have different characteristics. likewise, a hashmap and hashset are concrete data structures that implement a dictionary and a set with hash functions, but a B-tree map/set is a very different implementation that depends on the keys being ordered.

most programming languages expose concrete data structures and state the performance characteristics you can expect from everything in the standard library.

some languages don't tell you, however, and just give you the abstract collection. Nix for instance has "lists". and honestly they feel like linked lists (builtins.tail to chop off the first element, for instance). you'd be forgiven for thinking it's just like Haskell, which Nix draws inspiration from. but prank! it's arrays and the tail operation is super inefficient actually!

but if a language calls it an array, I do generally expect it to be a real array.