> as an idiomatic shorthand Suppose a fantasy language has an ergonomic syntax to check existence. It returns a boolean. Additionally, implicit conversions to

> as an idiomatic shorthand Suppose a fantasy language has an ergonomic syntax to check existence. It returns a boolean. Additionally, implicit conversions to boolean for objects in the language is randomized for each runtime. Isn't such a weirdo language still preferable to implicit conversions, even when compared to a language where "null" and "false" are the only falsey values? Because even in those languages the new user must internalize the simple rule and learn from context how it works and why it can be used with impunity. Whereas with my weirdo language the syntax explicitly conveys to all classes of user what is happening in the code. Furthermore, I'd bet that even in your preferred languages there are less readable idioms that ninjas can leverage in the implicit conversions. In my weirdo language the randomized conversions would thwart the ninjas and keep the entire class of users free from their unreadable tyranny.