all serious numerical languages have that. it's more natural
0 base indexing is only good for calculating memory offsets. Nothing else. like in go `vec[a,b]` is indexing `a` to `b-1` which is purely because it's more convenient due to 0-indexing. this `b-1` is hugely confusing and big gotcha for the layman.
And almost all serious general-purpose languages use 0-based. It is more natural at least to me. You see, this is exactly why 1-based index of Julia is disliked by many.
you may not like rachel macadams, but she was never gonna be urs anyway. so meh
Style aside, you can't simultaneously complain that Julia doesn't get the resources of a general-audience language and then talk down to "general-purposes folks". Julia could be the bees knees for math-y stuff. And if so, good for it. But Python's success is because its flexibility makes it pretty good for a wide range of things, even if it'll never be great for any one of them.
i love python. in fact, in my daily run on cloud run it's one of the key component since it has a decent gcp client library for writing query code to bigquery.
but then i glue it up with bash and run some other analysis in julia.
i think you can have python, julia, bash, r, whatever. heck, i even dabled in go and react.
just saying julia is aimed at numerical first.
and i think 0-based indexing was merely a historical accident anyway due to lack of memory in early computers so use every last bit including the 0 even though it's not suitable for indexing but is suited for calculating mem offsets.
whatever, use whatever u like, not trying to promote julia to you or anyone else. just having a good argument on friday afternoon