this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
55 points (92.3% liked)
Programming
17424 readers
46 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is quite standard, and in fact it's even a safety feature. C++ introduced nullptr defined as an instance of std::nullptr_t explicitly with this in mind.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/nullptr
This approach is also quite basic in monadic types.
With what in mind? Evading
NULL?Languages that make use of references rather than pointers don't have this Dualism. C# has nullable references and nullability analysis, and
nullas a keyword.What does your reasoning mean in that context?
It's not about references vs pointers. You could easily have a language that allowed "null references" (edit: too much C++; of course many languages allow null references, e.g. Javascript) or one that properly separated null pointers out in the type system.
I agree with your point though, using a special
Nullvalue is usually worse than usingOptionor similar. Andnullptr_tdoesn't help with this at all.Not sure I follow you...
Depends on your perspective. It's convenient to lean on type checking to avoid a whole class of bugs. You can see this either as avoiding NULL or use your type system to flag misuses.
C#'s
nullkeyword matches the monadic approach I mentioned earlier. Nullable types work as aMaybemonad. It's the same concept shoehorned differently due to the different paths taken by these languages.as far as I know, C# don't have proper ergonomic monadic bind as in F# (computation expression), Haskell (do expression), and Ocaml (let*), but I could be wrong.
Correct.
"Monadic type" has something like three meanings depending on context, and it's not clear which one you mean. One of them is common in math, but not so common in programming, so probably not that. But neither "parametric types with a single argument" nor "types that encode a category-theoretic monad" have the property you say, as far as I know.
I imagine you're probably referring to the latter, since the optional monad exists. That's very different from returning null. The inhabitants of
Integerin Java, for example, are the boxed machine ints andnull. The inhabitants ofOptional[Integer](it won't let me use angle brackets here) areOptional.of(i)for each machine inti,Optional.empty(), andnull.Optional.empty()is not null and should not be called a "Null object." It's also not of typeInteger, so you're not even allowed to return it unless the function type explicitly says so. Writing such function types is pretty uncommon to do in java programs but it's more normal in kotlin. In languages like Haskell, which don't havenullat all, this is idiomatic.I think you're trying too hard to confuse yourself.