Language Support
Associative arrays can be implemented in any programming language as a package and many language systems provide them as part of their standard library. In some languages, they are not only built into the standard system, but have special syntax, often using array-like subscripting.
Built-in syntactic support for associative arrays was introduced by SNOBOL4, under the name "table". MUMPS made multi-dimensional associative arrays, optionally persistent, its key data structure. SETL supported them as one possible implementation of sets and maps. Most modern scripting languages, starting with AWK and including Perl, Tcl, JavaScript, Python, Ruby, and Lua, support associative arrays as a primary container type. In many more languages, they are available as library functions without special syntax.
In Smalltalk, Objective-C, .NET, Python, and REALbasic they are called dictionaries; in Perl and Ruby they are called hashes; in C++, Java, Go, Clojure and Scala they are called maps (see map (C++), unordered_map (C++), and Map); in Common Lisp and Windows PowerShell, they are called hash tables (since both typically use this implementation). In PHP, all arrays can be associative, except that the keys are limited to integers and strings. In JavaScript (see also JSON), all objects behave as associative arrays. In Lua, they are called tables, and are used as the primitive building block for all data structures. In Visual FoxPro, they are called Collections.
Read more about this topic: Associative Array
Famous quotes containing the words language and/or support:
“Whether we regard the Women’s Liberation movement as a serious threat, a passing convulsion, or a fashionable idiocy, it is a movement that mounts an attack on practically everything that women value today and introduces the language and sentiments of political confrontation into the area of personal relationships.”
—Arianna Stassinopoulos (b. 1950)
“... the first reason for psychology’s failure to understand what people are and how they act, is that clinicians and psychiatrists, who are generally the theoreticians on these matters, have essentially made up myths without any evidence to support them; the second reason for psychology’s failure is that personality theory has looked for inner traits when it should have been looking for social context.”
—Naomi Weisstein (b. 1939)