I immediately thought, "They're probably just doing !(null<0)," saw that he was launching into a bunch of irrelevant crap, scrolled to the bottom, and confirmed my suspicion. This article is like the now-ubiquitous jew media news-article-inflated-into-poz-loaded-mini-human-interest-piece applied to programming.
This sucks. The most consistent null I know is SQL's null, which seems to represent "unknown". unknown >=0 is unknown. SQL works that way. This weirdness all comes from asserting a known value when the value is actually unknown.
4 comments
1 u/badbear 11 Sep 2017 05:34
They really ought to fix that, but no doubt something depends on it being broken like that.
1 u/WhiteFraternity 28 Sep 2017 00:11
I immediately thought, "They're probably just doing !(null<0)," saw that he was launching into a bunch of irrelevant crap, scrolled to the bottom, and confirmed my suspicion. This article is like the now-ubiquitous jew media news-article-inflated-into-poz-loaded-mini-human-interest-piece applied to programming.
0 u/Marcellina620694 16 Oct 2017 18:02
Hey, guys!1dIlc9kX6
0 u/055d764559 28 Sep 2017 17:35
This sucks. The most consistent null I know is SQL's null, which seems to represent "unknown". unknown >=0 is unknown. SQL works that way. This weirdness all comes from asserting a known value when the value is actually unknown.