> But having L[2] be the third index in an array is horribly counterintuitive and leads to countless mistakes. Keep calling it the second, then. And use 'zerot

> But having L[2] be the third index in an array is horribly counterintuitive and leads to countless mistakes. Keep calling it the second, then. And use 'zeroth' for L[0]. Problem solved. Also, what is 'counterintuitive' is very often just a question of habit. I've many times seen Americans (at least those not scientifically inclined) express confusion over metric units. I have been using the metric system all my life in every its domain: I buy apples in kilograms, measure rooms in metres, water in litres, and I regard it as the most natural thing in the world. I find the American unit system batshit insane (why is 'ounce' a unit of mass, but 'fluid ounce' a unit of volume? WTF is up with all those different conversion factors?) and if I had the power to wipe the it from the face of the Earth, I'd do it in a heartbleed. I'm sure that if I asked some people from my country about this, I'd find many agreeing with me. But I realise there are people who feel just the opposite. (I still think they're wrong, but I get where they're coming from.) Zero-based indexing is similarly just a question of what people are used to. When those students start appreciating the nicer mathematical properties of zero-based indexing (and half-open ranges that go along with it), it'll become second nature to them. (I suspect the reason why many people don't is because laymen don't often work with abstract algorithms and indexed data structures where those properties display their usefulness.)