You do realize that 0-based indexing is mostly because of C's huge influence and not because it's natural to higher level languages, particularly ones that are designed with scientific computing in mind. Fortran existed before C.

It's also not hard to get used to. No more OB1 errors.

I programmed in 1-based languages for a decade before I used C yet I prefer 0-based.

If you are calculating an index the domain and range of the index function are very often 0-based. So you have to subtract and add one to convert from and to 1-based. It's just messy.

>No more OB1 errors

That makes no sense. Neither 1-based indexing or 0-based indexing will save you from OB1 errors.

As a matter of fact, if you make more OB1 errors in a 0-based indexing language, it's probably because your brain is wired to think 1-based.

The problem: there are legions of programmers whose brain is wired to think 0-based and are guaranteed to suffer through a lot more OB1 errors if they try to adopt Julia.

0 based indexing is not because of C's influence. It's because that's how computers work. ASM is 0-based indexing. The first memory cell on a computer doesn't start at address 1.

Programming languages are an abstraction from the hardware. There's a reason we stopped using assembly for most programming, and C is considered by many to not be a good high-level general purpose language. Anyway, 1-based is not exactly a new thing in the domain Julia is targeting.

Because you defined binary counting to start at 0

Your loss, maybe?

I didn't say I stopped reading.

If 1-indexing seems strange, you're probably not doing mathematical or statistical computing, so it's probably not the language for you.

I've done math and stats all my life.

When I do sigmas in math, they go: i=0,i<n and very rarely i=1, i<=n unless the problem really is made simpler by the weird 1-based indices.

that's very bourbakian, but pretty much everyone else does 1..n, except for taylor series.

>that's very bourbakian

guilty as charged :)

no need to be ashamed of it!