[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?