• Overshoot2648@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    It really doesn’t make sense to start at 1 as the value is really the distance from the start and would screw up other parts of indexing and counters.

    • Klear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      24 hours ago

      It doesn’t make sense that the fourth element is element number 3 either.

      Ultimately it’s just about you being used to it.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Yeah, but if we went back and time and changed it then there wouldn’t be other stuff relying on it being 0-based.

      • Username@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        It was not randomly decided. Even before arrays as a language concept existed, you would just store objects in continuous memory.

        To access you would do $addr+0, $addr+1 etc. The index had to be zero-based or you would simply waste the first address.

        Then in languages like C that just got a little bit of syntactic sugar where the ‘[]’ operator is a shorthand for that offset. An array is still just a memory address (i.e. a pointer).

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          I know. But in the alternate reality where we’d been using 1-based indices forever you’d be telling me how useful it is that the first element is “1” instead of zero and I’d be saying there are some benefits to using zero based index because it’s more like an offset than an index.