You’re repeating yourself without defending your point. Beating us over the head with how obvious something is to you doesn’t make your argument any more compel

You’re repeating yourself without defending your point. Beating us over the head with how obvious something is to you doesn’t make your argument any more compelling. > it is pervasive and fairly important Why? > it's kind of a deep indication that something is amiss. Why? > it's an argument that was had and decided 20 years ago. Evidently not, if we’re having this debate. > If this is wrong then you can probably assume that lots of other things which are important...are wrong Why? > google why 0-based makes sense by Djikstra Is Djiktra’s opinion so infallible it supercedes the design choices of several successful languages?