In Java, operators <, >, >= and <= are not defined for the primitive boolean type.
However, the corresponding wrapper class Boolean implements Comparable.
That is: true > false
is an error, but Boolean.TRUE.compareTo(Boolean.FALSE) > 0 is fine.
How come? Did the language designers change their mind? Why keep the incoherent behavior, then?
Although arbitrary, I can think of advantages to having a total order defined for booleans. Are there any disadvantages?
Programming languages are not mathematical constructs. They are complex projects spanning many years and a lot of different people. As such, they are subjected to opinions, legacy, disagreements, hype cycles, influences of other languages, poor communication, and unfortunately sometimes also to mistakes and stupidity. You could argue that most decisions about a language are in fact arbitrary.
Your question is perfectly valid: why is it like this? Unfortunately without asking people who made the relevant commits how much they can still remember is not really a viable option. So your guess is as good as anybody else's.
It is what it is, but you are entitled to have your own opinion. Sadly, such inconsistencies can be in some cases frustrating to the point when people abandon a language and create a new one. But since computers are physical, limited things, any new language will also be imperfect and opinionated.
If you ask me, having a total ordering on boolean is a good idea - it wouldn't hurt anybody, while it could provide some limited benefit in certain (although very narrow) cases. But there are many more, much much bigger issues with Java. As it stands, I don't think Oracle will risk breaking any existing programs by changing this behaviour.
