1: To clarify, people who are saying this is wrong because null is in fact very terrible are proving my point, which is:https://twitter.com/wycats/status/910514986228768769 …
-
-
5: My point is that there are worse costs, and you should still evaluate the worst architectures in terms of them.
Show this thread -
6: I'm definitively *not* saying null is no big deal.https://twitter.com/wycats/status/728985072586526720 …
Show this thread -
7: I'm on the Rust core team, and have rewritten code to Rust.https://twitter.com/LisaDanz/status/513428742786387968 …
Show this thread -
8/8: I just don't think "getting rid of null" is *alone* a justification for losing months or years of feature development. Count your costs
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You're point is totally valid but all the numbers are made up. I'd argue the billion includes the trillion amortized.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.