> arr[n..=m]

so you just need to overload the syntax of intervals even more to make it work

> arr[0..m], arr[m..]

now `m` refers to different things depending on which side of the interval it's on. less characters doesn't mean nicer

I get it though, I was skeptical about 1-based indexing when I started Julia. By the nature of indices vs length there will always be an off-by-one problem: either you have elements [n, m - 1] with length (m - n) or [n, m] with length (m - n + 1). Unless you're doing a bunch of pointer arithmetic type stuff, I find the symmetry of a inclusive-inclusive interval to be a better default.

As a final rebuttal I offer: range(n - 1, -1, -1)

Your second point is the main argument for me personally. Numbers in brackets always mean the same thing: the ordinal number of the references object in an ordered collection. In 0 based indexing you can think of the number as refering to the space between the referenced objects. But that is simply an additional mental image on top of the original one.

As a neat bonus, in Julia 1:5 is just the iterator for the numbers 1 to 5. So slicing is typically not some special syntax either. It all works rather nicely.

big uptick in authoritarian bootlicking in this place unfortunately

Not spending the last years of your life being a professional troll isn't a high bar that 99% of humanity doesn't clear. Nice monologue though.

k, keep me posted

Might as well ask here in case author or anyone else with a similar setup is reading. Has anyone run into stability issues running a bunch of self-hosting stuff on a mac mini M1 (8GB)? My setup is pretty basic - docker running Jellyfin, Immich, *arr software, qbittorrent. Stuff is stored on a NAS over SMB. Usually within a few hours of rebooting, the OS or at least userspace totally freezes. SSH connections are instantly closed, screen share doesn't work. It responds to ping for a while but that also goes down eventually. Pretty stumped...