> Starting at 1 is more intuitive Only when counting. Why should 'numbering' be the same as 'counting'? I don't see why that would lead to a generally more int

> Starting at 1 is more intuitive Only when counting. Why should 'numbering' be the same as 'counting'? I don't see why that would lead to a generally more intuitive when most of what you calculate with 'numbering' is offsets and indexes. Offsets begin at zero. Indexes could be by ordinal and not by offset, I suppose, but I don't see how that could be a benefit in typical index calculations--mostly they're just offsets in my world, distances between indexes. I rarely ever refer to specific, literal indexes, so I can't say that I have much of an opinion on them, but that does seem to be the area where indexing by ordinal would make the most sense. Perhaps this is the main operation that dominates numerical calculations? Rails even adds english ordinal methods (e.g. first, second, third, fourth, fifth) for this purpose.