
“Dijkstra is Wrong and So am I” – an argument against 0-based arrays - beachie
https://hackernoon.com/dijkstra-is-wrong-and-so-am-i-f36e2fbd5ae4
======
nabla9
Dijkstra is right and so were you once.

0 or 1 based arrays is not a fundamental issue. It's more like little endian
vs little endian. It's marginally better if everyone settles for one indexing.

In a good high level language and programming style you rarely need to think
in indexes. In a low level language 0-indexing is better.

------
ComputerGuru
In low-level languages, an index is literally a pointer offset. p[n] is
*(p+n), and 0 makes sense. In higher-level languages, it's a less direct
dereference that may or may not be directly mapped in a similar fashion.

Since there's a real basis for 0-indexing and none for 1-indexing, obviously 0
is right.

------
throwaway5250
Those who do not understand Dijkstra are doomed to revinvent him.

There are plausible, though inferior, arguments for 1-based arrays. This
person doesn't even manage to make them, though.

------
kuwze
[https://i.imgur.com/CMk6jZY.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CMk6jZY.jpg)

~~~
Gibbon1
This is the right answer, In addition I think a CS degree teaches you to how
to write algorithms and work experience teaches you to not. And modern
practice teaches you to avoid monkeying with array indexes when possible.

