There's some more languages, which try to treat primitive types like objects, to make them more consistently usable. As I understand, nullability is a big part of the reason why it can't be solved with syntactic sugar, so presumably this would be possible in all those languages.
If I'm not mistaken, Ruby is another one of those languages.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Groovy is pretty wild. It's like, honey, you need me to make this a BigInteger for you? I got you honey, don't even worry about it.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I kind of respect the stance, because it knows what it wants to be, but I also wrap number types into a separate data type to document that maybe you shouldn't multiply a port number by the wheel count and pass that into the temperature parameter, because I want more fine-grained typing, not one-size-fits-all.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

I love the idea of "tiny types" like that and wish they were built into more languages.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Just cast it. /s

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I believe, that would mean that any 0 is equivalent to the null pointer, since the null pointer is just memory address 0...

[–] qqq@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Not exactly "memory address 0"; there be dragons there. https://c-faq.com/null/index.html

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

In C that would make sense yes.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Probably some monad magic idk functional programming.