http://www.slideshare.net/ http://www.slideshare.net/images/logo.gif http://www.slideshare.net/ Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:50:47 GMT SlideShare feed for All Comments for Stephan.Schmidt /Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/v1?order=1 I don't understand guestfb50c's argument. "However, the ? notation is an idiom based solution, not a type system solution. You can always forget to invoke ? and get a NPE". You can forget to use Option and get a NPE as well. Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:50:47 GMT Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/1 guestc23bca8 http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/comment /Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/v1?order=1 Thanks for materials Stephan. Having been through each slide it has reinforced my belief that moving to Groovy was a good move. Given the seamless, full integration of Groovy and Java I'm not sure why anyone wold choose the Option solution over the '?' solution. Performance maybe? Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:29:35 GMT Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/1 keefie98 http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/comment /Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/v1?order=1 @guest The Option type is a native type in a lot of other languages, which is an argument for its use... many programmers were taught this as part of their first language. Consistency is good, but I agree the ? notation is a little more soothing. However, the ? notation is an idiom based solution, not a type system solution. You can always forget to invoke ? and get a NPE. With the option type there is no way to drop off the check, especially if your language's compiler enforces you to do it. So I prefer the option type along with a compiler that forces correct usage. Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:57:07 GMT Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/1 HamletDRC http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/comment /Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/v1?order=1 I must be really really old school. I don't mind the .? operators. They seem natural and non-obtrusive. However, the "Option/None/Some" idea seemed way too verbose and non-obvious. ...unless I really didn't understand the notion. Randy Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:17:26 GMT Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/1 guestc0dfdf4 http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/comment /Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/v1?order=1 See Slide 5. Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:02:18 GMT Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/1 Stephan.Schmidt http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/comment /Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/v1?order=1 I don't see how the proposal is any better than Groovy's safe navigation + Elvis operator (for default values) Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:19:50 GMT Stephan.Schmidt/better-strategies-for-null-handling-in-java/1 guest87b50b http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/comment