u/blutomcat's point clearly (I think) was that instruction sets didn't do what you suggest, so zero-based index is (was and still is) what you'd do if you wrote in assembly (which was not uncommon!), and on any given platform, assembly was the main language 50-60 years ago. It follows that it's easier to carry that over to higher level programming languages.

Whether that's what actually happened in the cases of HLLs that adopted zero-based arrays or not, I don't know. But today, to me, zero-based array indexing feels very natural, and the idea that zero-based arrays being simpler in assembly carrying over to HLLs seems at the very least plausible.

"just subtract one" would take a long time 50-60 years ago.

If you did this, you'd subtract one once at array creation. Or subtract whatever the offset is (really, you'd subtract 1 * data type size). Under the hood, using C syntax instead of assembly:

  int foo[n]; // what the user wrote

  // what happens behind the scenes, after a fashion
  int* foo = malloc(n * sizeof(int); // or sp - n * sizeof(int) if stack allocated; subtraction since stacks usually grow "down"
  foo = foo - 1;

All references into foo will now work just fine so long as they are within the [1,n] range (same issues as with 0-based there since C doesn't carry size information for checking array bounds access). This adds one extra instruction per allocation (which includes allocation on the stack) for all non-0 offsets, but then all access will have the same cost whether 0-based, 1-based, or arbitrary-based. That's a non-zero cost, but it's not exorbitant since you'll be accessing much more often than allocating (and if it's reversed, something weird is happening).

Since as you say, C doesn't carry size information, you would actually need to do it each time a pointer is created from an object. In C you can have arrays of arrays (not pointers) or arrays in structs, where there is no pointer on creation:

  // 11 arrays are created here
  int foo[10][10];

It doesn't make sense to create pointers for the 10 inner arrays, so the subtraction would presumably happen when referring to each inner array:

  int *z = foo[x]; // (char *)foo_sub_1 + (sizeof *foo)*x - (sizeof **foo)
  foo[x][y]; // (char *)foo_sub_1 + (sizeof *foo)*x - (sizeof **foo) + (sizeof **foo)*y

In any case, this is more work, both for the computer and for the human. It's analogous to trying to figure out "which year of which century is X in?" (2022 is the 22nd year of the 21st century):

  year(x) = (x - 1)%100 + 1
  century(x) = floor((x - 1)/100) + 1

The above formulae work for the 1-based convention, because they do the necessary 1 subtraction/addition in the right places. If we instead counted from 0, things would be a lot simpler (2021 would be year 21 of century 20):

  year(x) = x%100
  century(x) = floor(x/100)

Unfortunately, the Romans started counting years before anyone knew about 0. I think this is basically why we have a convention of counting from 1: 0 simply wasn't discovered until relatively recently in human history. Earlier number systems such as Greek/Roman numerals don't have a way of representing it.

when I count apples I happily start with one. it's "natural" to label the first thing "1".

or how would you count, say, 3 Apples? or three legionaries?

Counter-example:

You have to remove all desks from #20 to #30, how many desks are there?

Oh, it's 11 desks, I see. This is because we used INCLUSIVE indexing, instead of semi-open interval.

If we use semi-open intervals, we don't include the last item, so that we can write

    match index {
        0..10 => println!("first ten"),
        10..20 => println!("next ten"),
        _ => println!("something else"),
    }

but this forces us to start our intervals at 0, otherwise we would have to write 1..11 which would be awkward

Indeed. End exclusion is advantageous because we don't need to add or subtract 1 when constructing or interpreting ranges. Forgetting to add or subtract 1 is basically why off-by-one errors exist (and doing add rather than subtract or vice versa is probably why off-by-two errors exist).

`a..(a+n)` is an n-length range, not an (n + 1)-length range (oh look, an "add 1" operation!).

And an empty range is denoted by `a..a`, not `a..(a-1)` (oh look, a "subtract 1" operation!).

doesn't swift use inclusive indexing? 1...10 includes 10

Haven't used Swift, but looking at the documentation, it seems to support `...` for end-inclusive and `..<` for end-exclusive.

Looking at the Swift standard library, end-exclusive ranges seem to be far more commonly used:

  ~/build/swift$ git grep -e '\.\.< *[a-zA-Z0-9_(]' --and --not -e '^ *//' -- stdlib/\*.swift | wc -l
  599

  ~/build/swift$ git grep -e '\.\.\. *[a-zA-Z0-9_(]' --and --not -e '^ *//' -- stdlib/\*.swift | wc -l
  112

[0, 1, 2] would be how I would refer to my 3 apples. Each apple is identified by the number of apples that precede it.

I don't think it's inherently more natural to start from 1, just conventional. Disregarding history/convention, I think it would be more natural to use the lowest available natural number.

Back in Roman times, the lowest natural number that people were aware of was "1", so obviously they started counting from that number.

Our understanding of and use of mathematics has evolved since then, and accordingly there are fields such as computer science and combinatorics where there are clear advantages to starting from the smallest number (zero). In virtually all other cases, the reason "1" seems more natural is because that's the way it's been done historically.

It seems that when labelling those apples using a 1-based count, the logic is basically: each apple is identified by the number of apples that precede it, plus 1. The reason for the "plus 1" is that that was your starting number, but it could have easily been 2 or 3. If you instead start from 0, you can omit the "plus X" logic, just as I omitted the "+ 1" and "- 1" logic in my year/century formulae when moving from 1-based to 0-based counting.

The romans weren't the only people who knew how to count back then... And how many of the other (presumably arbitrary) choices for smallest number were zero? And why did it take over one thousand years to come up with ordinal "zeroth" after we knew about cardinal "zero"?

> It seems that when labeling ... number ... that precede it, plus one.

I don't think so. It's the number that you have counted once you've counted that one.

How do you write zero in Roman numerals? Answer: you can't. Even though they used their number system for adding amounts of money, they hadn't figured out "cardinal zero" yet.

It was introduced into western mathematics through Fibonacci in the 1200s at the same time that Hindu-Arabic numerals were adopted, which use "0" as a placeholder (compare this to earlier Greek numerals which work similarly to the system we use today but without placeholders and using different sets of symbols for the different places—and of course no way of representing zero).

That's what I'm talking about (though I guess the "thousand years" estimate was slightly high). Why did it take hundreds of years after the introduction of zero to get "the zeroth element of a sequence", which is quite a new usage, and even now is confined to specialized fields?

The well known “Numerical Recipes in C 2nd ed.” talks about how the first edition promoted exactly this - offset the pointer after allocation and you can use any indexing origin you want. And they promoted 1-indexing and wrote all the algorithms as such, before switching everything to 0-indexing for the 2nd edition.

I agree with you the subtraction instruction is not exorbitant, especially considering malloc is much more expensive and always has been.

Integer add/subtract never really took a long time. Slower than today’s sub-nanosecond, and it depends on the computer, but there were CPUs in the mid 1960s doing millions of instructions per second. They weren’t crazy slow, they were just crazy expensive.

A million, perhaps. But you're talking about adding one instruction to every single data access. Plus your code bloats up with all those extra dec instructions. BCPL and C were created for departmental and lab computers like the pdp-9.

Note, for example that the mighty 6502 succeeded in the market because its designers had heard from customers that the $100 price for the 6800 was too much, so they removed some instructions and addressing modes to get the die small enough that it could be sold for $20.

> But you're talking about adding one instruction to every single data access.

No, you misunderstood. You subtract one from the pointer at allocation time. You don’t add an instruction every time you access.

And even if it was an instruction for every access, memory access is much more expensive than and add (at least nowadays -- I don't know if that's always been true).

Similarly I like to think about it as the add/subtract instruction is very small compared to malloc (and maybe could be included in a custom allocator for free). So the one extra instruction will always be somewhere between relatively minor to negligible and unnoticed.

Yeah today memory access on a cache miss is really expensive. I think memory was normally running at a different clock rate than the CPU even 50-60 years ago, so has always been something where you can’t touch memory every instruction. The latency of a cache miss wasn’t nearly as bad in the past. When the data cache was invented, a main memory access was like 4 times slower than register access. Today, main memory access can be more than a hundred time slower, sometimes it can approach a thousand times slower, which is why we always have multi-level caches now. And memory latency is still getting worse. If someone figured out how to make memory faster without increasing the cost or the energy consumption, they’d be rich! ;)

would it? or would it be just a differently wired circuit?

the "differently wired circuit" would be an extra stage of logic computing a carry all the way from lsb to msb (an ALU outside the ALU?) and would contribute a fair bit of extra time. Easier to just use the ALU to do it, which is inserting an extra instruction, also a time waster.

If you're already doing base index addressing (eg, [SI + DI]) you're already using the ALU to compute your memory address, and it's not _that_ much extra wiring to have the ALU support either a constant power-of-two displacement or even a three-way addition; a constant displacement for a basic ripple adder is a XOR and an AND NOT, eg. The x86 family does three-way addition (and a shift) to support "[ESI] [EBX * scale + displacement]".

It's not just the extra wiring, but the extra time; each additional computation layer in an integrated circuit introduced delays that would made the operation noticeably slower.

Well, maybe, if the specific use case of 1-based arrays was all that got supported.

It'd be a pretty huge waste of processor design space to do that, though: if an HLL wants to support n-based arrays for n != 0 it can just store the base pointer with the initial index offset already applied.

Early 8-bit processors had a pretty poor set of addressing modes: you couldn't even expect [R1 + R2] let alone [R1 + R2 * scale + displacement], so random access into an array would be a multi-instruction task. By the time of the 80386 base scaled index addressing with displacement was in the CPU core, but it's not _free_ - there's an additional byte in the instruction encoding for the displacement, so even if the CPU computes the displacement with no additional clock cycles you'll have a latency cost for fetching the byte.