3 ms·

> Pretending it doesn't exist would cause more trouble in the real world than letting it be I don't agree at all with this point. RDBMS types for example are

> Pretending it doesn't exist would cause more trouble in the real world than letting it be I don't agree at all with this point. RDBMS types for example are non-nullable by default. Protobufs, XML and many other exchange formats also have optional types but not null added to every type. If you want better interoperability with programming languages, I think it would be better to go after e.g. IEE754 support.

kstenerud 6y ago
The default nullability of RDBMS types is implementation-specific. Protobufs requires a lot of ugly workarounds for languages such as Java to handle the language's nullable types. You can't eliminate the complexity; only move it, and protobufs moved it in a way that punishes languages with nullable types. XML at least works via omission, but that doesn't handle the case of explicitly signalling "no data", which is a valid signal in many languages. Concise Encoding does support IEEE754.
- willtim 6y ago
  > You can't eliminate the complexity; only move it, Yes and by using null-in-every type for your messaging, now you've pushed the problem out of your app and published it to the world.
  - kstenerud 6y ago
    Precisely.