[anttiharju]

My pet peeve is CGO_ENABLED compiler option in Go. It's set to 0 or 1 to enable/disable (can never remember which mapa to which)

If it was just CGO=true or CGO=false I think so much confusion could have been avoided.

I think similar thinking applies here. It's convoluted to disable something by setting ai_disable=true because I read it like: setting false true instead of just setting boolean.

[oreilles]

> It's set to 0 or 1 to enable/disable (can never remember which mapa to which)

That's crazy. Boolean logic is the most fundamental notion of computer science, I can still remember learning that in my very first course on my very first year.

[anttiharju]

I've no issues with boolean logic (&&, ||) but unfortunately all my schooling has done those with the notion of true/false instead of bits iirc.

[scbrg]

This follows a convention that was well established and felt pretty ancient when I learned about environment variables in the nineties (i.e. 30 years ago). Variables that are flags enabling/disabling something use 1 to enable, and 0 to disable. I'd not be surprised if this has been pretty much standard behavior since the seventies.

This is not unique to Go.

[whilenot-dev]

I always thought that an unset boolean env var should define the default behavior for a production environment and any of these set with a value of length>0 will flip it (AUTH_DISABLED, MOCK_ENABLED, etc.). I thought env vars are always considered optional by convention.

[anttiharju]

At least in the case of cgo_enabled it does define the default behaviour

[anttiharju]

I don't doubt any of that but why stick to such old conventions when there are explicit and immediately clear options?

I don't think me writing an if condition

if boolean != true

instead of

if boolean == false

should pass code review. I don't think my pet peeve is necessarily different from that. I understand there's a historical convention but I don't think there's any real reason for having to stick to it.

Hell, some of the other compiler options are flags with no 0 or 1, why could this not have been --static or any flag? I'm genuinely curious.

Moreover, 0 here maps to false but in program exit codes it maps to success which in my mind maps to true but then we have this discrepancy so it does not appear to be the right mental model.