Miguel, thanks for sharing this tip. Been a few years since I've done a C# project for a client but unexpected null values have always been a bane; and not just in C#.
Sometimes we want our programs to support capturing the fact we don't have a "real" value for a field. This does not violate SOLID. It does potentially double the cyclomatic complexity of our programs for each field where we want to support this.
Did Microsoft make a blunder (and Sun with Java and others) supporting null by default instead of as an option per class/object? I'm inclined to say yes. This should be an edge case because of the quality risk impact.
Nulls have their important use and should always be an option. But like salt, that option should be sprinkled in only where needed otherwise we might raise our blood pressure. :)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Miguel, thanks for sharing this tip. Been a few years since I've done a C# project for a client but unexpected null values have always been a bane; and not just in C#.
Sometimes we want our programs to support capturing the fact we don't have a "real" value for a field. This does not violate SOLID. It does potentially double the cyclomatic complexity of our programs for each field where we want to support this.
Did Microsoft make a blunder (and Sun with Java and others) supporting null by default instead of as an option per class/object? I'm inclined to say yes. This should be an edge case because of the quality risk impact.
Nulls have their important use and should always be an option. But like salt, that option should be sprinkled in only where needed otherwise we might raise our blood pressure. :)