|
I second your opinion.
In the Good Old Days, software was written by people, a significant percentage of whom knew what they were doing. Nowadays, programming has been opened to the "masses", so syntactic sugar and nannying compiler messages have become the norm.
I recognize the utility of lint-like warnings - at times, they can catch some real howlers. However, they are not necessarily a good default for an experienced programmer who knows what he/she/it is doing.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree, even an expert brain farts sometimes and the compiler warning you of that is, to me, useful to avoid bugs.
And having the warnings in place can help in shared codebases, if you work alone sure, disable them.
If it's shared I much prefer having them enabled and when you do weird stuff you disable it with a comment right there and not globally
|
|
|
|
|
I love Delphi 7's warnings of using platform-specific code - especially in the hindsight of how successful Delphi was on Linux and on .net.
|
|
|
|
|
Disable explicit nullability, problem solved.
If explicit nullability is your problem in the first place. If you don't know whether an object you just got passed to your function can be null, you have to program more defensively, than if you know it'll never be null (in that case, it'd get caught by the runtime if you declare this parameter as explicitly-not-null).
Explicit nullability is one of those correctness features which you may just as well dread if you're not used to having a compiler look at your work, but is rather helpful once you learn to let the compiler do your job.
If an object can, in fact, be null, then declare it as nullable. I got a plethora of both Object and Object? members in my current work project, those that can be null during error-free operation, are declared Object?, those that can't, are declared without the ? as I want the runtime to throw an error in an error case.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and in my original message, I stated that I did that.
The code I was trying to convert has been around for 10 years, and has been working flawlessly the entire time. I've already done the defensive coding that's needed. I've been coding for over 40 years. I think I know pretty much how to do this stuff.
And making an object nullable doesn't mean you don't still have to check it before using it, so you gain nothing at all by making it nullable in terms of how much code you have to write.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to check by making an object non-nullable. Suppose, I have a function Decode(List<byte> Buffer), not Decode(List<byte>? Buffer). Well, the moment a null gets passed to this function, the runtime throws an exception. I don't have to check anything in the function, the runtime does for me. More importantly, it throws at the exact point where a null gets converted to a can't-be-null, when taking a List<byte>? (or List<byte> with nullable disabled), any point in my function using this object can throw and depending on how the code is written, the crash stack trace may or may not end up a gordian knot to debug. With nullable, the stack trace is clear.
|
|
|
|
|
this will come out not in the way I might intended but,
just because it has been working for 20 years, does not mean I couldn't be reviewed, improved or changed.
I had this on some code last month. some simple method, was confused by this new warning, but helped learned how there another way to write the code (for what ever .net compiler developer has decided it should be written their way)
I don't like it, looks off, maybe ill come to shifting thinking, but hopefully for that set of developers that have yet to have the whole system fail over because of 1 null check missing in that 1 very very important, one of a kind situation, that this warning helps mitigate for them until they leave the project and is someone else problem then.
|
|
|
|
|
You're looking to add
<Nullable>disable</Nullable>
To a PropertyGroup in your .csproj. You may also want to add the following, since you would already have the usings you want:
<ImplicitUsings>disable</ImplicitUsings>
Nullables kinda make sense because people get silly around the value null, so you can use this feature to get the compiler to do null checks instead of doing them yourself - but I turn this off because otherwise it warns in a lot of places where I'm already considering that. Implicit usings, imo, may make the code seem to be a little more convenient, but then hide the dependencies of the code - and will add in dependencies that you're not using, which is really annoying if you use something like ReSharper to import an unknown type with alt-enter and there happens to be a same-named type in the implicit imports 
You may also check out dotnet 6, since you're upgrading, and 6 is already RTM.
------------------------------------------------
If you say that getting the money
is the most important thing
You will spend your life
completely wasting your time
You will be doing things
you don't like doing
In order to go on living
That is, to go on doing things
you don't like doing
Which is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Davyd McColl wrote: Nullables kinda make sense because people get silly around the value null, so you can use this feature to get the compiler to do null checks instead of doing them yourself - but I turn this off because otherwise it warns in a lot of places where I'm already considering that.
I do that too. I already handle the null checks, and just because something is nullable doesn't mean you can just willy-nilly use objects without null checking before hand.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Dude a quick Google search will show you that it can be easily disabled.
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, go back and re-read my original message. I've already done that. It was freakin annoying to have to, which is the entire point of my rant.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
This forum kinda sucks as its hard to see context. Sorry if I missed something.
|
|
|
|
|
If so what Star System would best fit?
I personally think the TRAPPIST-1 System would best fit, just the distance is the problem...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I do think it's possible, except they come from far and they've colonized this planet.
Or would you have me believe customers are from planet Earth (or even this solar system)?  
|
|
|
|
|
Customers are from the B ark.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure we will all die from some horrible disease transmitted by (mobile) phone.
|
|
|
|
|
If I recall correctly the TRAPPIST-1 system has two or three good candidates, if you're looking for one with a gravity similar to earth.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
Not only that, the system itself is small enough that colonists of each of the three planets could trade with current technology...
They are that close together...
|
|
|
|
|
Possible doesn't imply feasible.
|
|
|
|
|
Feasible doesn't mean feasible in the next few decades.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO - Its highly doubtful that humans survive long enough to develop the necessary technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
We only need a new Captain Kirk and a new Enterprise with Warp 10 or 12 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am fairly certain the rest of the cosmos does not want the human species leaving this planet to mess up other planets.
We are a fairly efficient parasitic species, destroying everything in our path.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
