[seanx]

IIUI Anders isn't suggesting that null isn't necessary, but that you should be able to say in code: this type does not allow nulls (or this type does allow nulls). We have this with value types, int or int?, but not with reference types. Adding this in at the start would have removed many chances for bugs.

E.g. I frequently need to check if params are null and then throw an exception at run time. If I could declare a param as requiring a value then the error could usually be caught at compile time.

[hello_moto]

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

But my point is "how, do you think, people use it in the real world".

It's just like any other programming languages: people tend to abuse it.

At the end of the day, it all depends on your developers.

[DougBTX]

> At the end of the day, it all depends on your developers.

Sort of. In your WS example, if you had better developers then they could have defined the interface to accept Nullable<DateTime> instead of DateTime. So the language does let you express that null is an allowed value.

The feature request for the language is to make it possible to express Nonnullable<MyClass>. Regardless of your developers, the best that they would be able to do is throw an ArgumentNullException (which I see thrown for all over the place) without that support.

I'll accept that there may be a situation where a client sends junk to a service, and the service treats the junk as null, but that requires both sides to be in on it - in which case, they would be able to agree to a signature change instead. But they can only agree to the signature change if the language supports it.