I find zero-based indexing more natural. Consider the case of dates. Dates are naturally one-indexed. There is no year zero.
This means that the 21st century started in the year 2001. Likewise, the current decade started under a month ago, not over a year ago. If you think the 21st century started in the year 2000, as do most people, then that implies that the first century either started in the year 1 B.C. (ugly) or was only 99 years long (not a century). People naturally (and incorrectly) default to zero-based indexing in this case!
I would go farther and make centuries zero-indexed too. It's far more natural to say that the Nth century is everything in the form Nxx than to say it's (N-1)xx. Every time I run across a numbered century I have to stop and think for a split second to calculate what years it covers. I got this wrong on several occasions in grade school and was marked down for it.
Zero-based indexing works naturally for grouping things. One-based indexing does not.
This means that the 21st century started in the year 2001. Likewise, the current decade started under a month ago, not over a year ago. If you think the 21st century started in the year 2000, as do most people, then that implies that the first century either started in the year 1 B.C. (ugly) or was only 99 years long (not a century). People naturally (and incorrectly) default to zero-based indexing in this case!
I would go farther and make centuries zero-indexed too. It's far more natural to say that the Nth century is everything in the form Nxx than to say it's (N-1)xx. Every time I run across a numbered century I have to stop and think for a split second to calculate what years it covers. I got this wrong on several occasions in grade school and was marked down for it.
Zero-based indexing works naturally for grouping things. One-based indexing does not.
This, of course, doesn't matter much.