Yes, it's OK to have null in the language in limited cases. I'm fine with null so long as the language enforces checking for null when it could cause a NullPoin

Yes, it's OK to have null in the language in limited cases. I'm fine with null so long as the language enforces checking for null when it could cause a NullPointerException (or that language's equivalent). Java's biggest failure in null handling was allowing EVERY reference type to be null without a way of specifying that it could be non-null. This basically ensured that null could creep in almost anywhere. Allowing a type to be null should always be opt-in. It still bothers me that I have to put NOT NULL in almost every SQL column definition because the SQL spec has columns default to being nullable. Ugh. At least SQL does allow me to choose nullable vs non-nullable, unlike Java.