> it's much more basic than ebingdom's explanation Just to contextualize my explanation, I took it as a given that we were talking about the two _safe_ ways to

> it's much more basic than ebingdom's explanation Just to contextualize my explanation, I took it as a given that we were talking about the two _safe_ ways to handle missing data: a type system which has a notion of nullable/non-nullable types (e.g., Kotlin) vs. a type system which has Option<T> and no primitive notion of nullability (e.g., Rust). I thought it was obvious that one would want this to be tracked in the type system _somehow_ (to prevent the billion dollar mistake), and that we were just discussing different approaches to achieving that goal.