>>And then we have the lovely example of staring with one... 1 C.E. is preceded by 1 B.C.E. -- and as a result, computation of time passed between C.E. and B.C.E. will need to be handled as a special case.
>
>And even there it's all OK but we're looking at it the wrong way. The year is not a single piece, a nail in the box to count one by one, it's a segment between two particular midnights, namely those that are the border between 31. december and 1. january. And these midnights, being points, are numbered regularly, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2... It's only that the year one is the time betwen NY midnight #0 and #1, year two between #1 and #2 etc.
>
>Just think of how much of computing is influenced by people's unwillingness (or, in some cases, inability) to deal with simple mathematical concepts such as interval, fraction (and the special case, fraction where denominator is a degree of ten). The day with twice twelve, because thirteen hours was too much. The percentage (which has created more confusion than the problems it solved).

"Inventing" the Zero was the great advance the decimal system had over the duodecimal system found in many early cultures - whereas the duodecimal system had the benefit that the system number could be divided by 4 instead of 2 numbers without incurring a rational left over. (no puns about rational, left and or left over intended). Qutie a few people think that a duodecimal system with "zero-mechanics" might have been easier in non-calculator times. So citing this when ranting on from zero based arrays is questionable


>It does keep us in business, but it's largely the part of business where we have to keep doing stupid things because the requirements are stupid. But hey, this is only a rant thread...

I am doing my best ;-)