Null references (oh no, not again!)

[Rainer Deyke]

Daniel Keep wrote:
> The point was that these were identified as being responsible for the
> majority of the bugs in a large, real-world code base.  Clearly #2 and
> #3 are common enough and cause enough issues to have made the list.

A sample size of one doesn't mean much.  In my experience, none of those
four factors account for a significant amount of bugs, since all of them
(except integer overflow) can be caught without too much effort through
the copious use of assertions.

I'd still prefer non-nullable references to be the default though.
Writing an assertion for every non-nullable reference argument for every
function is tedious.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd at eldwood.com