> changed what I expected from language was non-nullable types
I got the same revelation from the a lot more conventional [] looking Crystal, which don't solve it through optionals but through union types. Exposure to that kind of type safety to enforce non-nullability is really a watershed moment.
[] For values of convention that look like Ruby. Not everyone think that look is conventional enough.
I got the same revelation from the a lot more conventional [] looking Crystal, which don't solve it through optionals but through union types. Exposure to that kind of type safety to enforce non-nullability is really a watershed moment.
[] For values of convention that look like Ruby. Not everyone think that look is conventional enough.