I've never understood the first half of Dijkstra's argument. Unless we are programming a theoretical Turing machine, there will also be a maximum number that can be represented, so the argument about using inclusive bounds for the lower end also applies to the the upper end. So you can't represent all numbers with a single range style. You either end up excluding the smallest number, the largest number, or the empty set. Or you need special notation to handle one of those three cases.
I suppose the 0,1,infinity principle argues that including the empty set and smallest number is more important that including the largest number, so that notation should be preferred by default. And when writing using A<=i<B it is clear enough, but once you remove those symbols and start using them in indexing or function call syntax, like [A:B] or range(A,B), the inconsistency of bounds really breaks my brain, and having to pass a number larger than the largest array index as an upper index range bound gives me nervous ticks. I'd rather use inclusive bounds everywhere and have special syntax for empty set.
I suppose the 0,1,infinity principle argues that including the empty set and smallest number is more important that including the largest number, so that notation should be preferred by default. And when writing using A<=i<B it is clear enough, but once you remove those symbols and start using them in indexing or function call syntax, like [A:B] or range(A,B), the inconsistency of bounds really breaks my brain, and having to pass a number larger than the largest array index as an upper index range bound gives me nervous ticks. I'd rather use inclusive bounds everywhere and have special syntax for empty set.