You are completely missing the point of Nullable. It was introduced because databases allowed int, float, etc ( value types ) to be null. It was never meant to be an Option type. Reference types are already "nullable" so the database returning null for strings wasn't a problem. But databases returning nulls for int was a problem. It led to performance issues ( boxing and/or adding additional code to marshal data from one source to another ). If you find Nullable to be annoying then you either don't code in C# much and you especially don't deal with data/databases.

For what it was intended for, Nullable did it's job. And if Nullable is your only complaint, given the extraordinary changes that C# has gone through, I think it speaks well for C#.

Am I? Apparently so is everyone else because Microsoft has re-worked Nullable<T> in C# 8 to be almost exactly like Java Optional! Silly me right?

C# 8.0 implementation of something like Optional<T> for reference types uses static flow analysis to ensure correct use of potentially null values. That's vastly superior in every way to Optional<T>.

    someNullableInstance.DoSomething();  // compiler error
    if (someNullableInstance != null) 
        someNullableInstance.DoSomething();  // not an error