If you select the option "c) 2 ≤ i ≤ 12", then Dijkstra's subsequent argument for zero-indexing becomes an argument for one-indexing, because a sequence of length N yields the range 1 <= i <= N when subscripting with 1, but 0 <= i <= N-1 when starting at 0. The latter is uglier than the former.
At the end of the day, like all language design decisions involving an arbitrary choice among reasonable options, you get used to it once you use the language enough (and also some folks will refuse to ever use the language because of it for aesthetic reasons).
I've used many languages, and I don't have much problem with any quirks or major differences (Haskell, JavaScript, ...). The only language I've bounced off of is Prolog, and I'm planning another attempt.
But I've done a lot of low level programming, and 0-based arrays are a no-brainer to deal with. Switching to 1-based arrays throws out all of my intuitions and makes me have to recalculate everything, which is error-prone.
When you're in the supermarket and you're counting how many items are in your shopping cart, do you start from 0?
If you are counting, 1-based makes a lot of sense. If you're indexing, they're equally valid approaches. However, if you're indexing then you should be able to use an arbitrary range and not be restricted to one or the other (with a mapping function from your actual range to the language's base).
Yes, because the cart starts empty. But, more to the point, I don't call the thing I put into the cart that causes it not to be empty the zeroth item.
Honestly, not that many people in math think about the construction of the natural numbers frequently. Yeah, we learn about it of course, but that's about it. Very often the natural numbers do not include 0. Often they do. I've seen $\mathbb Z_{\geq0}$ and $\mathbb Z_+$ used to avoid having to worry about it.
Hell, different countries can't even agree on whether 0 is positive. In France, 0 is considered both positive and negative. In USA, 0 is considered neither.
(quick edit: I realize my last paragraph makes the $\mathbb Z_+$ option seem weird. I do math in the States.)
Or, at least, that was the case when I did maths there. No idea what the default interpretation is these days.
This is mostly why I don't say "natural numbers" and instead say "positive integers" or "non-negative integers", depending on if I want 0 included or not.
It's also about the only thing I really don't like about Julia – so I can understand someone saying 1-indexing is a deal-breaker.
I'd bet this is true. It doesn't seem fiddly to me as a mathematician. Thinking habits can be really hard to get past though, so I also understand people not liking 1-based. I just think the argument from math is wrong.