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 …
-
Show this thread
-
2: there are certain architectural elements that people hate *so much* that they blind people to doing a real cost-benefit analysis.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
3: the problem is so bad, they think, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, to rewrite away from them.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
4: the "billion dollar mistake" implies that. It's so costly that it's worth any cost to rewrite away from it.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
5: My point is that there are worse costs, and you should still evaluate the worst architectures in terms of them.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
Yehuda Katz 🥨 Retweeted Yehuda Katz 🥨
6: I'm definitively *not* saying null is no big deal.https://twitter.com/wycats/status/728985072586526720 …
Yehuda Katz 🥨 added,
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread
Yehuda Katz 🥨 Retweeted Lisa Danz
7: I'm on the Rust core team, and have rewritten code to Rust.https://twitter.com/LisaDanz/status/513428742786387968 …
Yehuda Katz 🥨 added,
-
-
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
1 reply 2 retweets 12 likesShow this threadThanks. 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.