[ghaberek]

> this breaks the identity `arr[idx] == (arr + idx)`. as a c++ (and sometimes c) dev, I tend to consider "index" and "offset" to be functionally equivalent. hard pass.

And I think that's the problem. Programmers have collectively conflated the concept of "offset from the address" and "position in the list" as the same concept, and they're not the same thing. Both concepts have their uses but they're separate distinct concepts. C and C++ don't index* a list, they simply offset it, and too many other languages that don't care about in-memory addresses or offsets have carried the concept from offset over to index erroneously.

[leetcrew]

I can see how in a higher-level language it might make sense to use 1-based indices. this is, after all, how humans typically count. I just don't agree with it as a general statement over all programming languages. in low-level contexts where you are working directly with memory, it is quite natural for indices (or idx * element_size) to be equivalent to offsets.

[kaba0]

Depending on the context of the program, both can be more comfortable. Pointers/enumerators? 0-based Heavy math problem? 1-based

I believe there is a few languages which can let you set it