# Shorthand for \[\[1,2\],\[3,4\]\] .+ 1

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/shorthand-for-1-2-3-4-1/12526>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Tags:** question\
**Created:** [July 20, 2018, 8:29am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/shorthand-for-1-2-3-4-1/12526 "2018-07-20T08:29:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Seif\_Shebl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Seif\_Shebl](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Seif_Shebl)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2018, 5:48pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/shorthand-for-1-2-3-4-1/12526/10 "2018-07-21T17:48:28Z")

</div>

That’s another example of Julia trying to be perfect. If a similar effort is being exerted to make it simple, Julia can place itself in the Top 5 list in just a few years. Before 0.7, this question wouldn’t have been asked. I mentioned this point [in a previous long thread](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/1-0-annoyances-and-matlab-comparison/9433).

Past century languages allowed `A + 1` by default without complaining. Fortran, Matlab, R, Numpy, APL, Perl, and others were created and used by genius mathematicians and no one, AFAIK, complained about adding a scalar to an array. My comment may seem negative but I love Julia and I try to be honest. These tiny perfections can accumulate and yield a perfect language that no one likes to use. The moral of the story? Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, and putting the end-user in focus, always choosing the **good approximation** approach.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/shorthand-for-1-2-3-4-1/12526)._