Null References, the Billion Dollar Mistake

jonr writes "'I call it my billion-dollar mistake. It was the invention of the null reference in 1965. At that time, I was designing the first comprehensive type system for references in an object oriented language (ALGOL W). My goal was to ensure that all use of references should be absolutely safe, with checking performed automatically by the compiler. But I couldn't resist the temptation to put in a null reference, simply because it was so easy to implement. This has led to innumerable errors, vulnerabilities, and system crashes, which have probably caused a billion dollars of pain and damage in the last forty years. In recent years, a number of program analysers like PREfix and PREfast in Microsoft have been used to check references, and give warnings if there is a risk they may be non-null. More recent programming languages like Spec# have introduced declarations for non-null references. This is the solution, which I rejected in 1965.' This is an abstract from Tony Hoare Presentation on QCon. I'm raised on C-style programming languages, and have always used null pointers/references, but I am having trouble of grokking null-reference free language. Is there a good reading out there that explains this?"

Comments

Wouldn't help

[corporate zombie]

Fine. No null references. So I create the same thing by having a reference to some unique structure (probably named Null) and I still *fail to check for it*.

Null references don't kill programs. Programmers do.

    -CZ

Re:There was a bigger mistake:

[Rik Sweeney]

Null-terminated strings. The bane of modern computing.

Yeah! Let's abolish them, life would be much simplerasdjkaRGfl$!jaekrbFt6634i2u23Q0CCA;DMF ASDJFERR

Re:null or not null, that is the question

[Thiez]

> Another behaviour by default that C got wrong is initialisation: by default your variables are not initialised so if you forget to initialise your variables your program may act randomly which is a pain to debug, the correct default would be to have all variables initialised by default but with the option to let variables non-initialised which can be useful as a performance optimisation.

C did NOT get it 'wrong'. C just gives you a lot of rope to hang yourself with. You are free to write you own version of C that protects you from yourself (tweaking an open source C-compiler to initialise all variables by default (to what value?) should take you a few hours at most, and most of that time will go to finding the right source file to edit...), but I like it when C obliterates my foot every now and then. Alternatively you could write a program that goes through your code to look for situations where variables that may be uninitialised are used (I believe Java does this) and whines about it.