4 ms·
could you have this pattern compile down to little more than a null check The answer for C# and Java, which this issue was directed at, is no. Email me if you
by Locke1689 13y ago
could you have this pattern compile down to little more than a null check
The answer for C# and Java, which this issue was directed at, is no.
Email me if you want details.
- masklinn 13y ago> The answer for C# and Java, which this issue was directed at, is no. I'm not sure what you're talking about, you focused on java and C# for odd and unknown reasons, TFA merely uses java as an example of syntactically heavy (or even missing) closures language to illustrate the pattern's gains and differences.
- Locke1689 13y agoDid you read the article? This is the beginning of it: The other day, I saw this example on StackOverflow: Person person = dataSource.getPersonById(personId); if (person != null) { person.setPhoneNumber(phoneNumber); dataSource.updatePerson(person); } This looks like a typical case where we need a null check. If the canonical example under discussion is in Java, I think it is safe to assume the article is about Java.
- masklinn 13y ago> I think it is safe to assume the article is about Java. No. The article is about a pattern of explicit null-check avoidance, java is an example of "a language without blocks or lambdas" but the article is no more about java than it is about ruby, you're not even missing the forest for the trees you're missing the forest for a fallen leaf.