> Either approach will work. There may be others. This was a pithy summary. Yes, all the languages discussed (Ruby, ObjC, Java, Haskell) are all indeed Turing-

> Either approach will work. There may be others. This was a pithy summary. Yes, all the languages discussed (Ruby, ObjC, Java, Haskell) are all indeed Turing-complete and hence can express what any other one can express. What the article didn't discuss is ... basically everything there is about the "nullness" discussion going on in the software engineering community. I use nullable languages a lot (Ruby, Java, C#, Clojure, Common Lisp, etc.) and null-free languages a little, but for a long time (Haskell, more recently others). If I absolutely want to make correct code without writing more tests than code and using extensive code coverage tools and other external support, I'd rather do it in Haskell. Then I don't have to worry about nullness except when I want to, and then the type system handles checking that I properly checked for it.