[kevinmchugh]

I can't speak for all Ruby developers but I found that I could read a pull request from just about anyone I worked with a and find a spot where they hadn't covered a possible nil with a test. And yes, we had coverage checks.

A type system can keep you from having to write those tests.

[siwatanejo]

> A type system can keep you from having to write those tests.

Because with a proper static lang (hint: not Java, not C#), nil doesn't exist? Right.

[ebingdom]

Those languages don't have null safety, but plenty of languages do. Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Haskell, etc.

The claim is true: a type system _can_ prevent null-related issues and eliminate the need to account for them in tests. That's not the same as saying every type system does.

[campl3r]

Doesn't C# support this by enabling Nullable?

[creakingstairs]

They all have nulls but a static lang will warn you that the value can be null.

[tene]

This is false. There are plenty of languages without pervasive implicit nullability. Check out Haskell and Rust and Ocaml.

[creakingstairs]

You are right. I should have said some. The point I wanted to make was that having type safety is better for checking null than having no type at all.

[shepherdjerred]

It can if you choose to return Optionals instead of nulls.