[ISaIF73]

Urbit stack is ~30k lines of code, that's low enough to be grasped by a single person. What's hard is learning form scratch completely new platform, but that's deliberate and is not such a problem if it manages to deliver what it promises.

Somehow I feel that accusations of being ideological come from people, who themselves are ideologically oposed to Yarvins work and fail to consider Urbits network protocol purely for its properties. Idea of giving network addresses value, cryptographic ownership and creating a hierarchy of addresses resembling functionality on the network (users, ISPs, etc.) seems perfectly resonable.

[ForHackernews]

From the last time this came up on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22859156

> the core of the whole system (the Nock language) has "loobeans" instead of booleans in which 1 represents false and 0 represents true at which point I nope'd out pretty hard.

>> Being contrarian is not the same as being clever, and this is very much not clever.

[gonehome]

Yeah, no disagreement from me there. That bit is dumb and he admitted it was a mistake to do that.

It doesn’t mean that everything is bad.

I was skeptical initially too, but was curious enough to check it out. I was surprised when I did.

It's a small community and product is still in pre-widespread adoption stage (though far enough along to be useful for people to play with): https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/roadmap/

My quick overview here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397725

[gonehome]

Also (not excusing the bad design) 0 is often the success error code in Unix for the shell and 1 or something else is often error.

So it’s not entirely without precedent, but it’s still an unnecessary and confusing inversion for true and false.

[ISaIF73]

Do you think this convention would be that hard to get used to, so that the whole system should be disuqallified?