On 25 September 2012 17:57, John Lenz <[email protected]> wrote: > One thing that I have seen specifically, is that supporting "non nullable" > types, and distinguishing between "undefined" and "null" in the type > signature creates a fair amount of busy work ("type casts" to remove > nullability) for larger projects. Although, the provide some level of > comfort for small projects (where everything is in your control).
Indeed, that is one of the things that is trivial to deal with when designing a language with types from the very start (where making types null-free by default is easy and damn useful), and very difficult when retrofitting types later (where all kinds of weird patterns might already have evolved). Regarding null vs undefined in JavaScript, the right thing to do would probably be making as few distinctions on the type level as possible. /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
