That’s not necessarily a mistake. Claiming that a reference cannot be null means... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		pizlonator on Dec 8, 2022 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: The road to Dart 3: A fully sound, null safe langu... That’s not necessarily a mistake. Claiming that a reference cannot be null means that if you later realize it has to be, you’ve got a potentially compat-breaking refactoring to make. So, nullable-by-default is either a good idea or a bad idea depending on lots of complex reasons.

Lewton on Dec 8, 2022 [–]

That's the exact same issue you run into if you suddenly find out that you need to use a different type (because.. Yeah, that's exactly what it means). That doesn't mean you should default to writing all your code without types

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact