• ferralcat@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Languages with null in them at all anymore just irk me. It’s 2023. Why are we still giving ourselves footguns.

    • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because languages need to be able to handle the very common edge cases where data sources don’t return complete data.

      Adding null coalescing to a null-safe language (like dart) is so much easier to read and infer the risk of handling null than older languages that just panic the moment null is introduced unexpectedly.

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        For old languages, null coalescing is a great thing for readability. But in general null is a bad concept, and I don’t see a reason why new languages should use it. That, of course, doesn’t change the fact that we need to deal with the nulls we already have.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          How are we supposed to deal with null values though? It’s an important concept that we can’t eliminate without losing information and context about our data.

          0 and “” (empty string/char) are very often not equivalent to null in my use cases and mean different things than it when I encounter them.

          You could use special arbitrary values to indicate invalid data, but at that point you’re just doing null with extra steps right?

          I’m really lost as to how the concept isn’t neccessary.

          • dukk@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ll point to how many functional languages handle it. You create a type Maybe a, where a can be whatever type you wish. The maybe type can either be Just x or Nothing, where x is a value of type a (usually the result). You can’t access the x value through Maybe: if you want to get the value inside the Maybe, 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 another Maybe, where you’ll either return the result through a Just or a Nothing. These are just some ways we can use Maybe types to completely replace nulls. The biggest benefit is that it forces you to handle the case where Maybe is Nothing: with null, it’s easy to forget. Even in languages like Zig, the Maybe 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.

          • eeleech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            One alternative are monadic types like result or maybe, that can contain either a value or an error/no value.