4 ms·

This is another off-base point, in my opinion. Sure, it's possible for it to be null, and that isn't great - but the vast majority of null problems come from th

by Latty 11y ago

This is another off-base point, in my opinion. Sure, it's possible for it to be null, and that isn't great - but the vast majority of null problems come from the user assuming the interface won't give you a null. Something returning an Optional should never return null, so the ambiguity is resolved. Sure, it still could as a bug, but that's actually a pretty rare case. I don't see it being a real problem.

bakhy 11y ago
that makes sense. i think an important question here is - what does "return null" in a method which returns Optional<T> do? will it return a null Optional<T>, or will it return a non-null Optional<T> which is empty? sorry to rub it in, but Java needs value types. this whole issue, however maybe irrelevant, does not exist in C#.
- KfZ 11y ago
  It's a very simple question to answer: "return null" returns null.
  - bakhy 11y ago
    then this abstraction has sprung a serious leak. the article seems to be fully right.
    - Latty 11y ago
      The point is that wherever that happens, it's an obvious flaw with the method returning the null, and can also be caught by static analysis. It means that in general, the problem is avoided. Yes, it's not ideal, it's still a flaw that should be caught at compile-time, but it's not a big real-world problem, as returning null by accident instead of an option is a pretty rare bug. The much more common bug (you didn't realize no return value was a case), the Option is a good counter to. No, it's not a perfect solution, but it's not useless either.
      - bakhy 11y ago
        i understand, and agree. i would personally, though, avoid adding it, and add attributes for the same purpose instead. just as the article suggests... it achieves the same without introducing a new class, thus also remaining backwards compatible.
organsnyder 11y ago
Exactly. A null Optional reference is such an obvious bug, that it can easily be detected by simple analysis tools. OTOH, a null is often an accepted (if derided) method of indicating that a value simply doesn't exist, so it's much more difficult to detect when a null will cause a problem.

by Latty 11y ago

bakhy 11y ago

that makes sense. i think an important question here is - what does "return null" in a method which returns Optional<T> do? will it return a null Optional<T>, or will it return a non-null Optional<T> which is empty? sorry to rub it in, but Java needs value types. this whole issue, however maybe irrelevant, does not exist in C#.

KfZ 11y ago
It's a very simple question to answer: "return null" returns null.
- bakhy 11y ago
  then this abstraction has sprung a serious leak. the article seems to be fully right.
  - Latty 11y ago
    The point is that wherever that happens, it's an obvious flaw with the method returning the null, and can also be caught by static analysis. It means that in general, the problem is avoided. Yes, it's not ideal, it's still a flaw that should be caught at compile-time, but it's not a big real-world problem, as returning null by accident instead of an option is a pretty rare bug. The much more common bug (you didn't realize no return value was a case), the Option is a good counter to. No, it's not a perfect solution, but it's not useless either.
    - bakhy 11y ago
      i understand, and agree. i would personally, though, avoid adding it, and add attributes for the same purpose instead. just as the article suggests... it achieves the same without introducing a new class, thus also remaining backwards compatible.

organsnyder 11y ago

Exactly. A null Optional reference is such an obvious bug, that it can easily be detected by simple analysis tools. OTOH, a null is often an accepted (if derided) method of indicating that a value simply doesn't exist, so it's much more difficult to detect when a null will cause a problem.