I barfed at 1-based indexing for about a week, but now it is as natural as anything.
I would compare 0-based and 1-based indexing with whether you put semicolons at the end of each line or not. Either way doesn't really change the feel (semantics) of the language.
Also, fortan is 1-based, iirc, and a lot of numerical code is in fortan.
Oh, and many many beginning programmers and scientists have a hard time with 0-based indexing. Not sure why, but such you hear, so the choice is really not that odd.
The reason beginners have a hard time with 0 based indexing is that humans count from 1. Seriously, I've spent weeks trying to tell people "yeah, we want rows 4 and 5, so that's, uh, rows 3 and 4..." and they think it's nuts, and I now think they're right.
Right. Zero based indexing makes zero sense, unless you explain the underlying technical reason, that it’s an offset relative to a memory pointer (spend a week teaching pointers first!).
It makes sense in certain context (and in languages like C that have a low-level mental model). For scientific computing at a higher level of abstraction where the mental model of a multidimensional array is a tensor, and not a memory offset location, zero-based indices really get in the way
Precisely. Indexing makes sense in a context, and it is trivial in general to switch. This said, telling people that the first element they want is the "0th", is completely unnatural.
In practice, however, I don't think much will change. In astronomy, and my subfield in particular, all papers are free on arXiv, and the publishing and referee process are almost more of an afterthought: the threat that you better produce a high-quality paper to get it officially published and usable in a job application.
But for research, arXiv is king. (There are even reports of some people no longer bothering submitting to a journal once they got tenure...)
If you can't pay the publication charges (usually paid by your grant), then there are other reputable journals in astronomy like MNRAS and Physical Review D. Physical review even let's you submit by importing from arXiv.
> In LA, everything is done to make sure the water yeets into the sea as quick as possible.
The infrastructure bill may change that [0]:
"Also, the money could fund stormwater capture and reuse projects, like the ones that filter rainwater into underground aquifers rather than let it flow into the ocean."
Unlikely since it rains so few times the cost to benefit ratio is terrible. Instead the city has been treating wastewater and using that constant source of greywater to irrigate public parks and recharge aquifers.
So is there also a kind of "reverse broken window" fallacy, e.g., for housing, where not tearing down an old... excuse me... "historic" building prevents the creation of bigger and better things?
"Construction of the plant at Zwentendorf, Austria was finished but the plant never entered service. The start-up of the Zwentendorf plant, as well as the construction of the other 2 plants, was prevented by a referendum on 5 November 1978, in which a narrow majority of 50.47% voted against the start-up."
It seriously boggles my mind that the present environmental activists are celebrating the shuttering of nuclear power plants when they are mostly just being replaced by natural gas turbines (or fuel oil).
Like, yeah, solar and wind and hydro are great, but we also keep saying you can't build PV in the desert because it'll cool them down (Nevada), that solar thermal vaporizes birds (California), that wind mulches birds (California), and that hydro power consumes to much land and destroys river systems (name a state with big rivers).
Nuclear isn't nearly as harmful if you have recycling processes in place (recycling has been completely shuttered in the US) and don't build oversized reactors because of a regulatory failings that make many small reactors exponentially more expensive than a single massive one.
> We took methods that had been exploited to improve on previous results for over a decade to their logical extreme, and found that this method no longer leads to improvements.
This actually sounds like a really good review paper! Review papers serve multiple purposes: getting people up to speed on a subject, and putting your own spin on a subject to guide future investigation.
I barfed at 1-based indexing for about a week, but now it is as natural as anything.
I would compare 0-based and 1-based indexing with whether you put semicolons at the end of each line or not. Either way doesn't really change the feel (semantics) of the language.
Also, fortan is 1-based, iirc, and a lot of numerical code is in fortan.
Oh, and many many beginning programmers and scientists have a hard time with 0-based indexing. Not sure why, but such you hear, so the choice is really not that odd.