18
Make Your Java Code Null-Safe Without Rewriting (jplus.hashnode.dev)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by to c/programming@programming.dev
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

JPlus is fully compatible with Java, offering modern language features like null safety, boilerplate code generation and other modern language features to reduce developer burden and maximize productivity.

Notably, there is currently no ‘superset’ language that keeps Java syntax almost intact while extending the language with features like null checks at the language level. JPlus aims to fill this gap, providing a language that existing Java developers can naturally learn and adopt.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 10 months ago (8 children)

But there is a reason for null, its a really nice thing you can work with.... I really don't understand all the fuss about null safety, working against the language

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Nulls are useful, but you can't work with them in Java. Anything can be null at any time without warning, even when you have absolutely no reason to ever allow a null. Null safety as a language feature gives you the choice to allow nulls when they make sense or guarantee a value when needed. It saves you checking for nulls in the core of your logic when you already ruled them out at the boundary and enforced it at compile time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    If you check for them in your boundary, you shouldn't check for them everywhere, only where you possibly introduce them ...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    But you can't look at a method signature and instantly know who handles the null check. You need to inspect code and calls to know for sure. This will lead to paranoia, sooner or later

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I want to write functions that fail at compile time if called with a null object. You can use annotations to kinda do this, but they do not produce compile errors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    But you should just throw an exemption, and let the caller handle it. There is so many variations where an object is null, you can't control, or you are deep inside your own code, it should be covered by a test.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    The problem is that when an project is too big and a method is called from multiple contexts it's very easy to lose track of the context where the null check has been done and where it hasn't. This leads to a lot of duplicated null checks around the project and the constant paranoia of "can this be null here?".

    A much better way of doing this is using the Optional when an Object can be "null" and a direct instance where it cannot. This way, at any given context you know for absolute sure if a null check is needed or not. However, even with annotations this does not throw a compile error...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent