kogasa

You look like you could turn runes into strength

Once every 50 years or so

If my cooking senses are right, it would be like cooking bacon in a stainless steel pan, which is sticky and burny but not impossible

Don't think it saves bandwidth unless it's a DNS level block, which IT should also do but separately from uBO

No, it isn't

You're making assumptions about the control flow in a hypothetical piece of code...

What you're saying is "descriptive method names aren't a substitute for knowing how the code works." That's once again just a basic fact. It's not "hiding," it's "organization." Organization makes it easier to take a high level view of the code, it doesn't preclude you from digging in at a lower level.

You can't disagree with the fact that Nullable works a lot like an Option. Returning an error is not idiomatic C# code (which would be to throw an exception usually) but if you wanted that, you'd use a Result<T, TError> type or similar.

It's okay, I don't take it personally. It's just such an odd thing.

Null pointers are one thing, C# nulls (with nullable reference types enabled) are another. They behave a lot like an Option monad with the caveat that the static analysis can technically be tricked by incorrect hints.

No, your argument is equally applicable to all methods. The idea that a method hides implementation details is not a real criticism, it's just a basic fact.

Eddie Bauer and Carhartt are my go-tos. Both carry tons of tall sizes. Wrangler has some too and may be cheaper.