(non)nullable types

[Daniel Keep]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Daniel Keep
> <daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Both of these syntaxes are solving a problem that doesn't exist.  This
>> is why we have null dereference exceptions: accessing a null pointer is
>> an error.  All this is doing is moving the onus for the check from the
>> hardware to the programmer.
>>
>> Leave magic out of the language and let the hardware do it's job.  If
>> you have a nullable type, it's because you WANT it to be nullable, and
>> you shouldn't have to stand on one leg and jump through a burning hoop
>> every time you want to look at the damn thing.
> 
> Having only nullable references with no non-null counterpart *SNAP*

This is (expletive) ridiculous.

Why is it that I'm unable to criticise even a tiny aspect of someone's
proposal without people disregarding everything I've said TIME AND AGAIN
over the past year or more that I'm in support of non-nullable
references and go "oh but we need non-nullable references"?!

It's like if I don't 100% agree with someone, I'm automatically
completely opposed to their position.  I'm opposed to having to check
nullable types every goddamn time you want to look at its value.

Screw it.

  -- Daniel