Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:47:41 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message >> news:hkv1mg$s6...@digitalmars.com... >>> retard wrote: >>>> Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:49:31 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: >>>> >>>>> D has moved a lot towards supplying by default a lot of what >>>>> Coverity claims to do. By making such an expensive tool irrelevant >>>>> for D, we can make D much more cost effective. >>>> D doesn't provide non-nullable types >>> Yes, there have been a couple long threads about that. Dereferencing a >>> null pointer is a bug, but not a security/safety issue. >>> >>> >> Right, it's just not worthwhile for a language to provide help avoiding >> bugs. > > > It's a benefit/cost issue. There are no bug-preventing features that are > without cost, the idea is to maximize the ratio.
What exactly is the cost here? The non-nullability invariant can be checked on compile time. It incurs no runtime overhead. Also the notation can be quite terse, as we have seen in Other Languages(tm).
