OP here - OP has checked out (and lived with) trinary logic. Just because you appreciate null doesn't mean it should be kept in programming languages and existing programs.
That there is a logical truism, isn't this fun?
Also: false means not true, zero is a number and null doesn't exist, by definition. We can model true/false/zero easily as they exist. Null is made up, so every language gets to think about what it means in an abstract made up way. Thus the pain, thus the post.
The last 100 years have been dealing with the fact that true and false are not enough to describe the world of computation. You also need undecidable, or null, for statements that can be proved to never terminate.
It is very much still an open question if a statement is absolutely undecidable and if we need to add something like null in all logic [0].
As for your arguments on why we don't need null, they sound exactly like the arguments against zero from the middle ages [1].
>Just as the rag doll wanted to be an eagle, the donkey a lion and the monkey a queen, the zero put on airs and pretended to be a digit.
That there is a logical truism, isn't this fun?
Also: false means not true, zero is a number and null doesn't exist, by definition. We can model true/false/zero easily as they exist. Null is made up, so every language gets to think about what it means in an abstract made up way. Thus the pain, thus the post.