News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:.NET Framework Version Comparision by TazeTSchnitzel on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @07:18AM (#3913787)
I thought .NET types were optionally nullable? I don't think they are by default.
Re:.NET Framework Version Comparision by NetMonkey on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @07:24AM (#3913815)
Basic types are optionally nullable. int? is nullable, int is not.

It is a fantastic tool in many cases where a null is much clearer than something like -1 to denote a missing value.

However, I can see the issue with some developers using nullable types for everything. But any sufficiently powerful/flexible tool is always going to be misused by some.

Re:.NET Framework Version Comparision by DrJokepu on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @08:01AM (#3913902)
I had the misfortune in the past to maintain C# code that kept everything as strings; whether it was an integer, a floating-point number, a guid, a date or a boolean. Lousy developers can abuse anything, in itself in my opinion this is not a reason to not have it included.

(I have a the same opinion about goto and operator overloading; clearly the folks at Microsoft agree with me here.)

Re:.NET Framework Version Comparision by gouranga on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @07:21AM (#3913805)
They are optionally nullable. Unfortunately, people seem to think that making use of them everywhere is cool :(