On 05/26/2013 08:46 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/26/2013 7:26 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
A language that
statically enforces the programmer to check for null would help here.
I'm not arguing it won't help. I've been working in the background on a
NotNull!T template.
I'm arguing that the benefits are being oversold.
IIRC the damage done by software bugs to US economy alone is estimated
to be around 60 billion a year. One billion damage done by
dereferenceable null pointers appears to be an optimistic estimate.
It's like saying null pointers are the vast bulk of programming bugs.
I just find that to be so obviously untrue.
Who is claiming this?
Making non-nullable pointers is just plugging one hole in a cheese grater.
Yes. The next step will be to add dependent typing and the @correct
attribute. :o)
