[krautsourced]

I'm sorry but this... madness. Referring to return codes, which are completely arbitrary in nature, as being intuitive and thus, 0 as true being intuitive, feels like a complete logic breakdown.

Yes, if this language were to exist in a complete vacuum, where no other languages are existing, and nobody learnt anything else before, then sure, 0 as true and 1 as false would be fine I guess. Still not more or less intuitive, but one could agree on using it. But in a world where every other programming language uses 0 as false (or some equivalent) and where the chance that someone would use "nock" as his one and only programming language is very much 0%, this feels like utter bullshit.

Also, the versioning scheme based on Kelvin temperature? Seriously?

And then look at the Hoon syntax. No keywords, just ASCII symbols. Just look at it.

This better be some very elaborate hoax...

[prostoalex]

> Referring to return codes, which are completely arbitrary in nature, as being intuitive and thus, 0 as true being intuitive, feels like a complete logic breakdown.

Does the opposite approach make sense though? Generally, something being "true" means a program can happily move along. Something being "false" generally requires more introspection on why exactly it's false, i.e. error handling, exception handling, with the resulting changes in execution flow.

[Myrth]

It makes sense because it's de facto standard, and intuition is experience, and intuitive is what we're used to. I'm not sure how it can be explained more basically.

[prostoalex]

That's not an argument that scales well, as then we'd have a single programming language, anything else being un-intuitive. Every single non-obscure language that exists today had to go against the (previously acquired) intuition, introduce new concepts and then work its way up to the point where new concepts are the (newly acquired) intuition.