Optional -> OptionalResult

Remi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr
Wed Jun 5 05:42:39 PDT 2013

On 06/05/2013 12:49 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
> I'm not talking about "how nice" the code looks when using such API but
> "what can" be accomplished by using it. Of course with language support
> like ?. and ?: the code would could look much nicer even without Optional.


and better if Optional is an annotation/keyword, that forces users to 
use ?.,  ?: or a null check
so have the same guarantee that Optional as a class without the overhead 
and without a way to stick Optional in a middle of angle brackets.

A lot of people find that Java should do the boxing transparently, but 
adding a class Optional/Option/Maybe
to manage null goes in the opposite direction by forcing users and 
writers of API to do the boxing (of null) by hand.

Basically I see Optional/Option/Maybe (or any boxing of null) as a 
solution based on a design pattern.
Most of the design patterns are created because of a lack of support in 
the language.
So instead of using a design pattern why not adding support for null 
management directly in the language,
we are talking about Java here, a language that has always evolve and 
will continue to evolve.

> Regards, Peter


More information about the lambda-dev mailing list