https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.1/ref/models/fields/#nul...
I've got a colleague who has been using django for a couple of years (and has 15+ years experience with python outside of web, as well as java, php, arduino hacking, 3d printing, etc).
He pointed me to the link above re: nulls - I can't figure out why the default would be to convert a null to an empty string. All major databases can understand nulls just fine.
"... If a string-based field has null=True, that means it has two possible values for “no data”: NULL, and the empty string. In most cases, it’s redundant to have two possible values for “no data;”..."
An empty string is "no user supplied data" and a null is "no value has been given at all". It seems rather ... odd(?) to try to conflate the two.
Am I missing something?
I've got perhaps a slight bias against django, in that the only people I've known who've used it were either junior devs who had no experience in anything else (and raved about it), or senior folks who've inherited a relative django mess (usually the result of the aforementioned junior devs).