4 ms·

nil really isn't any better than null-pointers/references. In the end, you need to check for nil-ness anyway, and there's no mechanism that will help you ensure

• kazinator 11y ago
  NIL is objectively, unquestionably safer than a raw machine pointer that is null. It's a first class object with a type; a symbol with a name, and instance of the NULL class and so on. Of course, if you want to use NIL as a character string or floating-point value, there is an exception. That's your fault: you needed a way to indicate "I don't have a string here" or "I don't have a number", and you bungled the logic.
  • mcguire 11y ago
    "Of course, if you want to use NIL as a character string or floating-point value, there is an exception. That's your fault: you needed a way to indicate "I don't have a string here" or "I don't have a number", and you bungled the logic." And there's the rub: Just like NULL. And, in fact, that's the major problem with NULL. NIL is better than NULL, but not by much.
    • pmelendez 11y ago
      > NIL is better than NULL, but not by much. NIL is probably the best you can get once you realize that the empty state is unavoidable. My personal problem with this kind of rant is that is full of hate but lacking in general in alternatives to represent an empty state. The author mention optional types as an alternative. That's fine for parameters but that doesn't cover when you need to have an empty reference.