0

Null is considered bad, because of nullcheck. My question is, what other way there is, that would have replaced this null problem? How could that have been avoided?

| improve this question | |
  • so basically en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… should be the solution? but even there, you have to check, if you got Nothing or Just some value. so what does it help? – Tomy Oct 3 '15 at 12:18
  • No, you mostly don't have to check explicitly (instead, you use library functions that know how to handle it), and Option/Maybe composes better than null. Also, even when checking explicitly, since most languages that have Option also use pattern matching, the compiler will warn you if you forget to match against one of the cases. And finally, Option is a type that means "this may be optional". The type that says "this may be null" doesn't exist in Java... or rather, all types are. – Andres F. Oct 3 '15 at 12:30
  • 1
    @Tomy the value of a Maybe monad or Option type is that the type system requires you to check whether the value is null. If x is an instance of a nullable type, Java allows you to do x.foo() which can throw a NullPointerException. If maybeX is an Option, maybeX.foo() won't compile. In many Option implementations you could do maybeX.get().foo() which is equivalent to not checking for a null pointer, but there are stricter variants where you have to have to supply code paths for both alternatives. E.g. in Scala: val y = maybeX getOrElse { throw SomeException() } + 2 – amon Oct 3 '15 at 12:33
  • Nulls aren't inheriantly bad, nulls being a valid value in potentially any variable is bad – Richard Tingle Oct 3 '15 at 15:28
  • @RichardTingle: Unless one wants to add compiler-generated run-time checking, there's no real alternative to nullable variables when writing a class like List<T>. The backing store needs to be an array with more elements than the list has items, and there's really no sensible value that can be placed in the unused slots. One could have code generation generate run-time null checks for non-nullable generic types and omit such checks for nullable ones, but that would impose added costs at run-time without necessarily providing any useful safety improvement. – supercat Oct 29 '15 at 15:13

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.