this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Java

1340 readers
2 users here now

For discussing Java, the JVM, languages that run on the JVM, and other related technologies.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Which do you prefer of these two? The goal is the same. If bar is null then make foo null and avoid the exception. In other languages there is the ?. operator to help with this.

foo = bar == null ? null : bar.baz();
foo = bar != null ? bar.baz() : null;

I ask because I feel like the "English" of the first example is easier to read and has less negations so it is more straightforward, but the second one has the meat of the expression (bar.baz()) more prominently.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd skip the ternary and go with

foo = Optional.ofNullable(bar)
        .map(Bar::baz)
        .orElse(null);

But if I didn't, I'd use the first form.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I actually prefer

Optional.of(bar)
    .map(Bar::baz)
    .orElse(null)

You can crucify me but there is no way to miss the point in a quick glance here and I doubt that with JVM optimizations there is any meaningful performance impact, exceptionally in business code.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The second, or early return/continue/break.

But don't forget the third option:

foo = null
if (bar != null)
    foo = bar.baz();

This is much more readable if nontrivial; the only downside is that this inhibits the practice of ubiquitous final.

Actually, doesn't Java allow lazy final if you don't initialize (that would require explicit else)? I speak too many languages ...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is much less readable if non-trivial. It's easy enough here, but now I need to search through the code to see where else foo was set.