Someone can correct me if im wrong but I think nullable in C# still doesnt force you to do a null check before accessing properties or methods, however I believe it does give a type error when using a nullable type where non-nullable is expected, which is good. So it might not be 1-to-1 but it fulfills a similar purpose for sure.
Coming from a rust background I would have sure appreciated my workplace enabling the nullable feature on our main codebase from the start. I’ve run out of patience for null errors :(
That sounds similar in purpose to Haskell’s ‘Maybe’ or Rust’s ‘Option’ enum, right?
I still think that the null type was a mistake that introduces unnecessary bugs. But I’m glad to see more languages are taking measures against it
Someone can correct me if im wrong but I think nullable in C# still doesnt force you to do a null check before accessing properties or methods, however I believe it does give a type error when using a nullable type where non-nullable is expected, which is good. So it might not be 1-to-1 but it fulfills a similar purpose for sure.
Coming from a rust background I would have sure appreciated my workplace enabling the nullable feature on our main codebase from the start. I’ve run out of patience for null errors :(