2 ms·

I appreciate the thought out response, but do understand the concept. It just changes the onus somewhat. A well written Go program will check for and handle n

I appreciate the thought out response, but do understand the concept. It just changes the onus somewhat. A well written Go program will check for and handle nil up front. That an option type is 'safer' only helps enforce good habits. I'm not against the idea, I just don't see the big benefit to a programmer who understands what he or she is working with. Unless the value is solely not having to think about nil cases, in which case I'd argue the value is very little.

andrewjf 5y ago
Relying on “well written” to prevent bugs is just a fantasy. Non-nullable types and compiler enforced checking of present/non-present values leads to more readable and more maintainable code. And there’s a mountain of CVEs, and bugs in go programs, to prove it. Maybe you just have to experience it. Honestly a language designed in this century with nil values is tragic compared to what exists in other languages.
viraptor 5y ago
> That an option type is 'safer' only helps enforce good habits. It enforces compilation result not habits. "to a programmer who understands what he or she is working with" - one day you'll learn that everyone makes mistakes regardless of experience, but it's better to accept and adjust to that fact before it bites you ;)