[article] Language Design Deal Breakers

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 08:49:37 Rob T wrote:
> So will introducing non-nullable references make things worse or
> have no practical effect?

We're going to add non-nullable references as a library type (NotNull!T or 
NonNullable!T or somesuch). That will allow you to type references as being 
non-nullable. It doesn't give quite as high a gain as having them being a 
built-in type, but there's a definite cost to adding something to the language 
(far higher than adding it to the library), and we don't think that the cost 
is worth it.

Again, it's not the case that null references aren't a problem. It's just that 
they're being blown of proportion, and it's just not worth adding a built-in 
type to deal with them at this point (let alone making references in general 
non-nullable by default as some people would like done). You don't add new 
features to a language to solve every bug that comes along. We have a powerful 
language. Let's take advantage of it. The library solution should be fine. It 
just isn't as extreme a solution as some people would like.

- Jonathan M Davis