Well, you tried to appeal to a common logic, and I appealed to even more common logic. If you arrange 3 apples on a table in an array, and ask anyone to take the 0th apple, they will be confused.
0-based is just a convention, not a law of the universe. Only using integer-type numbers to address array elements is too merely a convention of some programming languages. And note that no one suggests using non-integer numbers here, only numbers of non-integer type.
Obviously, opinions vary here as well
Types are good
Opinions vary on this topic, apparently. There’s a proliferation of untyped languages.
Try interacting with anything that uses u64 and you’ll be a lot less happy!
I’m sorry you had to experience this, but in all my years of development I hadn’t.
…not actually quite as bad… While it’s UB for C, and it can return garbage. … the value it returns is 0x8000
0x8000 is garbage. Insane.
What does it mean to access the 0th element of an array?
Well, I think I’m happy to never have to choose a number type in JS. I also think that insanity is how C and Intel handle NaN conversions.
So by insanity you mean having just one number type?
Could you recommend a language with a sane handling of 64b-NaN-to-32b-int conversion?
JS just implicitly does what you, typed language developer, would have to do explicitly