Good read, and totally agree there's no point in trying to
convince programmers to use a new tool other than their own
choice. C++ evangelists should read this.
On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 01:36:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/15/2017 5:26 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
1-based array indexing... I don't know, but I've become so
accustomed
to 0-based indexing that I doubt I'll ever be able to get used
to a
language with 1-based indexing. Or whether D will ever be
able to
challenge Fortran in this respect. :P
I don't want to even try 1 based. All my learned behaviors with
arrays would just produce corrupt code.
It's why I don't dare try driving in England.
We are all stuck with 0-based and I don't think I could easily
change either or that it would be worth it... But I do think
1-based would have been superior, if we could go way back in time.
Dennis Ritchie did only two things wrong: placing the * at the
wrong side in pointer declarations; and making arrays as unsafe,
raw pointers -- and in consequence providing two redundant ways
to do one same thing: &arr[2] or arr+2
