3 ms·
Well, this is a load of hogwash. Null is definitely the billion dollar mistake. It’s not the “null” value however, since this could indeed be seen as a badly i
by moi2388 2y ago
Well, this is a load of hogwash.
Null is definitely the billion dollar mistake. It’s not the “null” value however, since this could indeed be seen as a badly implemented option monad.
It’s the implicit nullability of all reference types which is the mistake, since it leads to undefined behaviour at runtime.
Also; in regards to the linked style discussion in the post; you’re wrong about all of it :p
- dajoh 2y ago> It’s the implicit nullability of all reference types which is the mistake, since it leads to undefined behaviour at runtime. How does the implicit nullability of all reference types lead to "undefined behaviour at runtime" in, for example, Java or C#? I'm aware that dereferencing NULL pointers in C/C++ is undefined behavior, but I haven't seen this in any other language.
- NoahKAndrews 2y agoMaybe "unexpected" would be a better term
- moi2388 2y agoThat’s fair. Unexpected might indeed be more generally correct.
- karmakaze 2y agoThat's the same mistake. A type system that can't have NULL doesn't have a reference type that can be NULL.