On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
You are going to find plenty of people who disagree quite strongly with you.There are times when having a type be non-nullable is very useful, but there
are times when having a type be nullable is extremely useful. You seem to
think that the idea of nullability is bad in the first place, and while some
people will agree with you, a _lot_ will not. You're fighting a losing battle
if you're arguing that.
It would be a _huge_ design mistake for a systems language not to have
nullable pointers. Having non-nullable references or pointers in addition to
nullable ones might be useful, but not having nullable ones at all would be
crippling - especially for a systems language.
I think that we're clearly going to have to agree to disagree here.
- Jonathan M Davis