Re:Julia 1.0
by e12e on Thursday August 09, 2018 @02:19PM
(#17726913)
I've always found this a rather weak argument - he even implies that 2...12 is at least as clear (it being the starting point of the text).
I also thought I'd seen a longer text focusing more on the counting/indexing.
I still don't see the appeal of "element at zero offset" vs simply "first element".
I do agree that < vs <= etc can get messy. But outside of now fairly archaic programming languages I don't see the need. Just use a construct that handles ranges, like "for each element in collection/range/etc". (Or for math, "pattern matching" (or "for n in 1..m").
I also thought I'd seen a longer text focusing more on the counting/indexing.
I still don't see the appeal of "element at zero offset" vs simply "first element".
I do agree that < vs <= etc can get messy. But outside of now fairly archaic programming languages I don't see the need. Just use a construct that handles ranges, like "for each element in collection/range/etc". (Or for math, "pattern matching" (or "for n in 1..m").