@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)

@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.

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

@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.

@fiore @roxy @sodiboo it's like, if you start with C arrays,

it's down to what you consider important, the "constant time access" part or the "array of items" part or whatever. For y'all it seems to be the "constant time access" part. For me it's the "array of items" part.

@fiore @roxy @sodiboo I mean, some people (and languages) call dictionaries "dictionaries". Some call them "maps". Some even call them "hashes" (????).

It's all still the same type of thing.

"my definition of an array is the ONE TRUE DEFINITION and every other programming language is WRONG!"..uh, no not really.