Elegance is a term developers love to throw around to get out of having to define why something is or is not good. Your answer is nothing more than "I like it more".
Nonsense. Are you saying the concept of elegance doesn't exist? I didn't explain why 0 is more elegant but that doesn't mean I'm not saying that it is more elegant.
One example is when you're processing arrays or matrices in blocks. Using right-open intervals (also the most elegant option) you end up with intervals like [0, 4) [4, 8) [8, 12). Pretty trivial to calculate those bounds! It's just 4N.
With 1-based you end up adding and subtracting 1 all over the place.
Another example is indexing into flattened arrays. To get to the relevant element it's just (row_len * col + row). With 1-based indices it's (row_len * (col - 1) + row).
Basically I've done a lot of 1-based programming (in Matlab), and you definitely end up adding and subtracting 1 in places where you wouldn't need to with 0-based programming.
> Are you saying the concept of elegance doesn't exist?
No...You can feel like something is elegant. Others may not feel that way. Saying "This is elegant" doesn't explain why, and since it's totally subjective it's just kind of a meaningless thing to say. Similar to measuring something by how "interesting" it is.
The rest of your post just verifies that your original post should've been "I just like it more."
> > I guess it's because there isn't a huge difference but 0 definitely is slightly more elegant than 1.
I don't see any claim by me that I was explaining why it is more elegant.
> > "0 definitely is slightly more elegant than 1."
> Totally subjective. You like it more.
Would you say the same about beauty?
> "Margot Robbie is more beautiful than Susan Boyle"
> Totally subjective. You like her more.
Let me clear things up for you:
1. Just because you don't explain something (why 0-based is elegant) doesn't make it any less true or more subjective.
2. Lots of things like beauty and elegance are PARTIALLY subjective. There is room for debate. But that doesn't mean that everyone completely disagrees with each other and there's no shared consensus.
3. Elegance doesn't just mean "you like it more". Beauty and elegance are reasons to like things more.
If by "clear things up", you mean behave with hostility towards someone pointing out your bullshit, sure, you sure did.
> I don't see any claim by me that I was explaining why it is more elegant.
Yes, from _my_ post.
> Elegance is a term developers love to throw around to get out of having to define why something is or is not good. Your answer is nothing more than "I like it more".
> Would you say the same about beauty?
Philosophical debates are cute and this is whataboutism. You're using a subjective term to compare two concepts as though that term is shared universally by others. It's not. To quote me: You like it more.
> 1. Just because you don't explain something (why 0-based is elegant) doesn't make it any less true or more subjective.
Not don't, can't. Or more directly, it's subjective. You like it more. You saying why you think something is more elegant doesn't make any other person agree with you. Because it's subjective.
> 2. Lots of things like beauty and elegance are PARTIALLY subjective. There is room for debate. But that doesn't mean that everyone completely disagrees with each other and there's no shared consensus.
Cute whataboutism.
> 3. Elegance doesn't just mean "you like it more". Beauty and elegance are reasons to like things more.
Subjective reasons to like something more.
> This is a weird debate.
It would be a debate if it were possible to have debates about things that were subjective, but it's not, which is my whole point. You like it more.
