[masklinn]

> I can see the alternate viewpoint but given that we can use structs and default fields to get the same effect I'm happy with the current solution.

And that's completely fair, I routinely use languages both with and without optional parameters[0] and that's fine I'm not saying languages must[1] have optional parameters, or even that they should[1]. My comment only tries to humorously denote that the claim I quoted is pure lunacy.

> we can use structs and default fields

Don't forget the builder pattern which works pretty well to replace optional parameters (and keyword/named parameters), though it's less convenient on the implementer's side.

[0] whether in the "native" sense à la Python or C#, in the "overloaded method" sense à la C++ or Java or in the "well your question doesn't even make sense" à la Smalltalk

[1] in an RFC 2119 sense