2 ms·

There were a number of systems oriented languages that, while algol-like in syntax, used zero-based array indexing, predating C. BCPL was intended to be a gen

There were a number of systems oriented languages that, while algol-like in syntax, used zero-based array indexing, predating C. BCPL was intended to be a generic systems oriented language, but Burroughs had ESPOL for their mainframe architecture, and HP wrote their operating systems and compilers in SPL, which was specific to their stack-oriented HP3000 architecture. All these used zero-based indexing, because for low-level, memory conscious manipulations, it's much more natural than one-based. But nothing is universal, and IBM's systems oriented languages (BPL, PL/S, and PLS/II) were more an evolution of IBM assembler and then Wirth and PASCAL, and used one-based array indexing. Personally, I've always found zero-based more intuitive and satisfying, absent arbitrary indexing (in which case I'd chose zero-based for most purposes where there wasn't a compelling solution based reason to use a different index base). But then spent years writing SPL ... I

unixbane 4y ago
On a cursory look, I'd say one based is more intuitive, for the sole fact that the a[len(a)] is the last element. Actually I remember there was a small time when I started programming in assembly it took me a while to get used to reasoning about the end of the array.
- walnutclosefarm 4y ago
  much of intuition is made, not innate, at least for things as abstract and arbitrary as languages and notation. If you come at this question from a point of view where an array is a block of memory words indexed by a pointer - which is pretty much how system programmers back in the day when I did such things, 50 years ago - then zero based seems natural and obvious. The pointer to the array is the array, and the first element in the array is the pointer plus zero, the second, the pointer plus one, and so on. Once you start thinking that way. For multi-dimensions, the arithmetic just falls out as well. But I don't think the fact that many of us developed that intuition, makes it inherently better. It just makes it more intuitive for those of us who developed that inuition. I've written oodles of codes with both paradigms. Either works. Zero is just more natural, to me.

unixbane 4y ago

On a cursory look, I'd say one based is more intuitive, for the sole fact that the a[len(a)] is the last element. Actually I remember there was a small time when I started programming in assembly it took me a while to get used to reasoning about the end of the array.

walnutclosefarm 4y ago
much of intuition is made, not innate, at least for things as abstract and arbitrary as languages and notation. If you come at this question from a point of view where an array is a block of memory words indexed by a pointer - which is pretty much how system programmers back in the day when I did such things, 50 years ago - then zero based seems natural and obvious. The pointer to the array is the array, and the first element in the array is the pointer plus zero, the second, the pointer plus one, and so on. Once you start thinking that way. For multi-dimensions, the arithmetic just falls out as well. But I don't think the fact that many of us developed that intuition, makes it inherently better. It just makes it more intuitive for those of us who developed that inuition. I've written oodles of codes with both paradigms. Either works. Zero is just more natural, to me.