Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Kagamin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
I doubt that blunt non-null forcing will solve this problem. If you're
forced to use non-null, you'll invent a means to fool the compiler, some
analogue of null reference - a stub object, which use will result into the
same bug, with the difference that application won't crash immediately,
but will behave in unpredictable way, at some point causing some other
exception, so eventually you'll get your crash. Profit will be
infinitesimal if any.
The idea is that non-null would not be forced, but rather be the default
with an optional nullable for the times when it really is needed.
This is interesting. I wonder what the practical result of non-null as
default will be. Do programmers bother to specify nullable when needed,
or will they "try to do the [perceived] Right Thing" by assigning stupid
default values?
If the latter happens, then we really are worse off than with nulls.
Then searching for the elusive bug will be much more work.
