this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
623 points (96.4% liked)
Programmer Humor
32714 readers
1496 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’ll point to how many functional languages handle it. You create a type
Maybe a
, wherea
can be whatever type you wish. The maybe type can either beJust x
orNothing
, wherex
is a value of typea
(usually the result). You can’t access thex
value throughMaybe
: if you want to get the value inside theMaybe
, you’ll have to handle both a case where we have a value(Just x
) and don’t(Nothing
). Alternatively, you could just pass this value through, “assuming” you have a value throughout, and return the result in anotherMaybe
, where you’ll either return the result through aJust
or aNothing
. These are just some ways we can useMaybe
types to completely replace nulls. The biggest benefit is that it forces you to handle the case whereMaybe
isNothing
: with null, it’s easy to forget. Even in languages like Zig, theMaybe
type is present, just hiding under a different guise.If this explanation didn’t really make sense, that’s fine, perhaps the Rust Book can explain it better. If you’re willing to get your hands dirty with a little bit of Rust, I find this guide to also be quite nice.
TLDR: The
Maybe
monad is a much better alternative to nulls.Isn't a Maybe enum equivalent to just using a return value of, for example,
int | null
with type warnings?Not quite, because the Maybe enum is neither int nor null, but it's own, third thing. So before you can do any operations with the return value, you need to handle both cases that could occur
Isn't that also true with compile-time type checking though? Eg. 0 + x where x is int|null would be detected? I don't have much experience here so I could be wrong but I can't think of a case where they're not equivalent
Most languages that let you do ambiguous return types don't do compile-time type checking, and vice versa. But if it's actually implemented that way, then it's logically equivalent, you're right. Still, I prefer having things explicit
Yeah it's nice to be able to see it
Yes it is