[dragonwriter]

> Go occupies an interesting space. In my mind, I see it as competing simultaneously with C and Python. I suppose that the developers didn't see a place for an Optional type within that realm.

I would assume that everything that hasn't been implemented in Go 1.1 is not implemented because the devleopers of Go "didn't see a place for" it.

Now, either not seeing it as more important than the theings that did make it in, or seeing it as trickier to implement and acceptable to do without in 1.x, that's quite valid.

[rybosome]

You make a valid point, but for something as fundamental as nullability, I think that's baked into the core language spec. It's possible that we could see an Option type in the future, but the fact that it's not an integral part of the language now means it would be unreliable and defeats the purpose of eliminating NPEs.

[dragonwriter]

> You make a valid point, but for something as fundamental as nullability, I think that's baked into the core language spec.

Well, its certainly out for 1.x; I wouldn't presume to assume how much or little flexibility there will be for 2.x if/when it happens.

> It's possible that we could see an Option type in the future, but the fact that it's not an integral part of the language now means it would be unreliable and defeats the purpose of eliminating NPEs.

Assuming that its not part of a breaking change, sure; but the no-breaking-changes pledge only applies to 1.x. If there is a 2.x, it will be because a need is seen for breaking changes.

I think that beyond a handful of core features, keeping Go 1.x small was a key goal, and getting real production usage experience with the small 1.x to decide on future directions.

[rybosome]

I hope you're right. If I ever get a chance, I'll ask. =)