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


I do not think he was arguing removing null completely from the type system. It is just that for the vast majority of the cases, references are not meant to be null and thus it should be disallowed by default. If you want to use a nullable reference you have to explicitly ask for such.

--
Ziad