[mcbutterbunz]

I agree. To me, its simpler to understand. Suppose x is a bool, reading the code, I say to myself "if not true..." or "if not false..." and my ape brain gets confused on what happens if its not true or not false.

Reading "if true == false" or "if false == false", it becomes much clearer what we're testing here and I understand it instantly.

[linknoid]

If the statement is "if (!isGreen)", it's much clearer to say "if is not green" than it is to say "if is green is false". Putting == true or == false makes you convert a clear statement "is green" into "true" or "false" instead of just being a natural English statement. It would be like saying in conversation, "I want to go to the store is false" instead of "I don't want to go to the store".

[kcartlidge]

> If the statement is "if (!isGreen)", it's much clearer to say "if is not green" than it is to say "if is green is false"

I agree that when you read it, it's clearer. And yet I still prefer "if(isGreen == false)" for reasons of clarity in another sense.

The "!" being right next to the "(" makes it easier to miss the "!" when scanning quickly through the code, hence reading the logic the wrong way round and seeing "(isGreen" instead of "(!isGreen". And that's enough of a risk to ignore the readability advantage of "(!".

(Edit: To be clear, I don't suggest "== true" for the opposite cases, as the lack of a "!" in those means the risk is gone)