Value types kind of definitively don't have null, right? You can have a zero int but not a null int. So nullability is not entirely orthogonal to value types, its an advantage for value types where they are practical.

I didn't say nullability is orthogonal to value types; I said it was orthogonal to the two-projections world, which is what that text in the article was about rather than nullability.

As to value types and null, I'm not sure about the current picture, but the general idea is that you declare what semantic properties you want - identity or not, nullable or not, tearable or not - and then the compiler picks the best technical in-memory representation for each use. For example, the compiler could choose not to flatten variables that could be null in the heap but to flatten them in the stack. That's the general idea, but I'm not sure about the details, some of which may yet change.

More generally than just Java, nullability is often a property not of a type but of a variable. For example, in C, an int may not be null, but a pointer to an int may be. Now, in C, `int` and `int*` are two different types, but that's exactly a distinction that the original projection-spit design made and we wanted to avoid. But you could still end up with a variable that could hold either an integer or a null and another that may hold an integer but not a null, only this is separate from the reference/value projection, which combines both identity and nullability (in C, `int*` is not only nullable, but also has identity).

This won't be true in Java, though - in Java, you will have null Integers at least. It seems that int will remain a different thing entirely from Integer, and will remain a JVM-only concept.

You can have a null int, it's called Integer.

What was taken away is the other, identity-having functionality of Integer and similar (e.g. no synchronization).