> 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.
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.
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.
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.