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.
I think generally it’s preferably to work in the affirmative, i.e.
bar == null?but I’ll admit I don’t stick to this 100% of the time and generally just use whatever feels better / more appropriate in the momentIf I had to go with the ternary operator, I would choose not to negate the statement for the sake of readability.
If I had free will of choice I would prefer using the Optionals API, like @MagicShel@programming.dev did.
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.
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.
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
finalif you don’t initialize (that would require explicitelse)? I speak too many languages …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.
