Jens Rantil's blog

Posted Tor 22 Augusti 2013

Java's missing optional keyword and the issues of null

One of my pet peaves when it comes to the Java programming languages [1] is that it does not do enough type safety. The issue is, simply, that programmers tend to believe that Java infers more safety than it actually does. The biggest reason for this can be summarized in one word; null.

[1]Can be replaced by most other statically typed language; such as C, C++.

Let's face it, we've all experienced a NullPointerException or two. Why? Because we focus so much on which variable type to use. This makes us tend to forget the simple fact that the variable might not have a value at all; It can be null.

Let's stop for a moment and think; In general, how many times should a variables and parameters be nullable vs. non-nullable? I'm not looking for an exact number here, but I'm sure you agree that most of your method parameters are expected to be non-null. Heck, they need that parameter to do what they are expected to execute. Still, they are nullable.

This is interesting, because most Java code I've seen goes against the common notion of requiring a parameter (or variable). I see two gaps:

Now, this is the time you might say "well, you've just been reading lousy Java code". I say, "don't blame the messenger, this is because the Java language is broken". I think that it's unrealistic that nullability needs to be documented and checked for every parameter I add to a method; I think it should be an inherent part of every programming language to be explicit about optional values, because they are less common.

Patching the Java language

One way to close this gap would be to introduce an optional keyword to Java. All parameters without this keyword would not be allowed to be nullable. If they happened to be, a NullPointerException would get thrown.

For example, the call

describe(null, "My description");


void describe(String name, optional String description) {

would throw an NullPointerException saying "name is not allowed to be null."

Obviously this would not be a backward compatible change and is never gonna happen.

A workaround for a broken language

A couple of months ago I was recommended to have a look at Google Guava by Robby Walker at Cue. I stumbled across the Optional implementation, and at first completely misunderstood what is was. This was a good thing, because I instead came up with what I wanted it to be; an immutable non-nullable wrapper.

My misunderstanding got me thinking and earlier today I sketched out an initial implementation of what I though would be able to solve some of the gaps mentioned earlier in this article. Here's the full implementation:

import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Set;

 * An immutable object reference that may not be null.
 * <p>
 * This class has two purposes:
 * <ul>
 * <li>it adds a clearly documents the fact that a variable must not be
 * <code>null</code>.</li>
 * <li>it helps users to catch possible {@link NullPointerException}s as early
 * as possible in the value chain.</li>
 * <li>it minimizes the risk of forgetting to check for null values in
 * constructors.</li>
 * </ul>
 * </p>
 * <p>
 * {@link NullPointerException}s are a misery in Java. Sadly, we have to live
 * with them and the best thing to deal with them is doing it as early as
 * possible in code. This class aims to help you with this.
 * </p>
 * <p>
 * A note on immutability: This class i immutable/final because is keeps
 * hashCode and equals methods to always return the same result throughout the
 * life cycle of an instance. This makes is possible to have
 * {@link NonNullable}s in {@link Map}s and {@link Set}s etc.
 * </p>
 * @author Jens Rantil <>
 * @param <V> the type of the real value to hold
public final class NonNullable<V> {

     * The real value that this class wraps.
    private V value;

     * Contruct a {@link NonNullable} immutable.
     * @param initialValue the actual value. Must (duh!) be non-null.
     * @throws NullPointerException if initialValue is null.
    public NonNullable(V initialValue) {
        if (initialValue == null) {
            throw new NullPointerException("Must not be null: " + initialValue.toString());
        this.value = initialValue;

     * Get the actual non-null value.
     * @return value of type V. Never null.
    public V get() {
        return value;

     * Returns the (unmodified) {@link String} representation of the current
     * value.
     * @return a string.
    public String toString() {
        return value.toString();

     * Returns a hash code value for the wrapped value object.
     * @see java.lang.Object#hashCode()
    public int hashCode() {
        return value.hashCode();

     * Indicates whether some other object is "equal to" the wrapped value
     * object.
     * @see java.lang.Object#equals(java.lang.Object)
    public boolean equals(Object obj) {
        return value.equals(obj);


The class makes it possible to document/infer non-nullability by type. It also makes it possible to quickly catch most of the invalid null values early on since they an exception is thrown in its exception.

The class obviously has some limitations:

  • A NonNullable instance can too be null. However, I still think the advantages outweighs the disadvantages.
  • It can be slightly more cumbersome to extract the value from a NonNullable as you need to use the get() method.
  • Instantiation of NonNullable can be slow. This is mostly a guess, though.

Additional notes

The Haskell programming language has the Maybe monad that handles this issue precisely the way I'd like other programming languages to do.

What do you think? Is this something that could be useful? Is null even an issue in Java? Please comment below.

Category: misc
Tags: java programming
Dude, did you like this blog post? Feel free to drop me some bitcoins at 1Q79HGDF3ZjfCwXLAW6e7gX4DeDu2GtZ7v.