COcogman10·Nov 22, 2022
> But, most importantly, the fundamental issue is that all classes are optional by default in Java (indeed, that's the problem at hand). Adding an Optional class doesn't really mean you can make any non-nullability assumptions about other classes, especially when using different libraries. The Optional class just added more complexity while simplifying very little.
When pron mentioned "this is actively being worked on", he meant exactly this problem. [1] [2] Java is currently working on changing the dynamics of the language such that classes can in fact be non-nullable. Last I checked in, this was the notion of `primitive` types being added in project Valhalla.
Optional just so happens to be one of the types in the JDK that will converted over to being a `primitive` type.
Now, what that means in terms of existing code I believe what's be
Read the rest
ing discussed. How do you handle
public Optional<Foo> bar() { return null; }
?
We'll see, it might be something like changing the code to something like this
public Optional<Foo>.val bar() { return Optional.empty(); }
which would guarantee that the optional type returned is in fact never null.
[1] https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla-docs/blob/main/site/desi...
[2] https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla-docs/blob/main/site/earl...