[aqueueaqueue]

I imagine zero based indexing is because resources were scarce and number of bits low in the bad old days. Why waste that zero index. From there is was backwards compatibility.

If machine code uses zero then assembly inherits that, them C and everything else. Even JS months!

[dsego]

It's pointer arithmetic I presume, a memory address + zero is still the same memory address, and then you increment to move forward.

[tcoff91]

No, zero based indexing just is based on how arrays actually work. It has nothing to do with resources being scarce. You have an address for the beginning of the array and an offset. The first element has no offset so you use zero. Therefore you naturally end up with zero indexing.

[aqueueaqueue]

Yeah but why wasn't that converted to human 1 based indexing at the machine code level or assembly in early machines?

Maybe because they didn't want to "hide the bicycle gears"?

[IshKebab]

No, it's because it doesn't make any sense to do that. It would add a ton of complexity for no benefit.

[robertlagrant]

It does make some sense: if I have some apples, and I ask a child to count them, they'll address each one starting with the number 1, not the number 0.

[IshKebab]

Indexing/addressing is not counting though. Look at a ruler. It doesn't start at 1.

[aqueueaqueue]

Thanks that made it click.

While I understand the CS concepts, I have never really thought about the developer UX before.

[robertlagrant]

Yes, indeed. But when indexing to an element in an array you aren't measuring from a zero (well, in memory you are, but not conceptually). You're conceptually pointing at an apple.

[leni536]

Assembly doesn't really have indexes, as it doesn't have arrays. It's all addresses and offsets. Offsets are naturally 0-based.

Everywhere else, indexing is just a convention, even in natural language and math.

[mkl]

No. Fortran (1957) uses 1-based indexing by default. Probably because matrix and vector indexing in maths is usually 1-based.