I agree, also I find that the original article linked in TFA is very interesting but a bit disingenuous.
He starts of by saying "you think 0-indexing was chosen because it makes pointer arithmetic simpler but you're completely wrong". Then he digs up the origins of the concept in BCPL: the reason is that it made pointer arithmetic simpler. Oh.
And then he goes on a contrived (but still interesting) explanation of how it's not because it made pointer arithmetic simpler but rather that it made it less CPU-intensive. Definitely worth a read but I didn't really like the patronizing tone.
He starts of by saying "you think 0-indexing was chosen because it makes pointer arithmetic simpler but you're completely wrong". Then he digs up the origins of the concept in BCPL: the reason is that it made pointer arithmetic simpler. Oh.
And then he goes on a contrived (but still interesting) explanation of how it's not because it made pointer arithmetic simpler but rather that it made it less CPU-intensive. Definitely worth a read but I didn't really like the patronizing tone.