12 comments

• 

  nicholas a. evans

  8 months ago

  YES. Pervasive nil checks and other defensive coding practices deep within domain code are an indicator that offensive code abounds: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thre...
  reply
• 

  avdi

  8 months ago

  Thanks Nick, I knew I'd seen something else on this topic recently, but I couldn't remember where.
  reply
• 

  Ingemar

  8 months ago

  Since I'm working almost exclusively with Rails I find myself do this kind of check mainly in controllers and views. In controllers it's mainly to check nested params and in views whether to output something if there's something to output. The latter is the most annoying case, and yes, it does smell.
  
  Maybe the solution is to add a presentation layer that take care of this conditional nil check?
  reply
• 

  avdi

  8 months ago

  In Rails, if I have something that may or may not be displayed I like to wrap that in a helper rather than put a conditional in the view.
  
  But Rails views are smelly in general, because as the least-OO part of Rails they are the hardest part to apply conventional OO patterns and idioms to.
  reply
• 

  darknighte

  8 months ago

  Interesting point. I would like to offer a couple of additional considerations.
  First, being paranoid (or having an insecurity complex) during development can help prevent code from "working" until the 11th hour. Healthy use of asserts to check for NULL's in this case can be a good thing. Secondly, not all problem domains are the same. In the embedded and/or safety critical space, severe damage can result based on unexpected values propagating through code even during development. By working with the first point, significant and costly damage can be avoided (and, in my case, has been more than once.) So, in my case, I try to balance the compulsive (can you say OCD anyone?) checking against out of bounds values against the impact to performance. Specifically, I use assert() heavily to validate initial code passes in development and then disable the assert() when I judge code to be more stable. Of course, this is always a judgment call for any coder/designer.
  reply
• 

  avdi

  8 months ago

  Having worked in the embedded space, I'd say that that is where it becomes essential to get rid of this kind of coding insecurity complex. If you're checking for null in domain logic it means you aren't checking for it at the boundaries religiously enough, using preconditions, postconditions, and invariants. Something I've done in the past, if an API I had to to use might conceivably return a null, was to wrap that API in a wrapper of my own that always asserts that the return values are non-null. And then only talk to the API through that wrapper - a software condom of sorts. I'm OK with implicit pervasive null-checking of this nature - it's when the conditionals for null checking are mixed into the conditionals for business logic that the code starts to smell funny.
  reply
• 

  avdi

  8 months ago

  On a second reading I think we're mostly on the same page. I don't really have a problem with using assert() a lot. assert() isn't a conditional - it says "I never, EVER expect this to be null". I don't have to write a unit test to test that my code handles the null and non-null cases correctly, because the null case will always crash. What I'm advocating against is code that tries to handle nulls as an expected case.
  reply
• 

  Sammy Larbi

  8 months ago

  I've always called the code with tons of null checks "paranoid code." I like that you've called the opposite "self confident." That's a good phrase for it.
  reply
• 

  Shannon -jj Behrens

  8 months ago

  > Code that constantly checks if things are null has an insecurity complex, always second-guessing itself. Make your code self-confident. Eliminate null checks wherever you can.
  
  I agree 100%
  reply
• 

  Mark Wilden

  8 months ago

  This has been an issue in the database community for a long time. The essential question is, how do you represent missing information? Take birth date, for example. Do you refuse to allow people without birth dates in your code? Do you give them a default birthdate (??). Or do you recognize that nil is a perfectly valid value for a variable that holds a birth date, and deal with it accordingly?
  reply
• 

  Captain Hammer

  8 months ago

  Mark -- representing missing information is an important topic. There's nothing wrong (to my mind) with using 'nil' to represent a missing birth date. The problem is that nil is also a perfectly valid value for 'something went wrong somewhere'. So now we have a value with two meanings. It doesn't matter how you choose to represent a missing value -- as long as that representation isn't already in use.
  reply
• 

  Mark Wilden

  8 months ago

  I don't think "something went wrong somewhere" is ever a valid value. :) In fact, I think that's the real usefulness of this article: Don't code defensively, assuming that you might have screwed up somewhere and therefore need to put up safety nets. Just do it right in the first place (and use automated testing to define "right").
  
  As for using one representation for two concepts, that's a valid argument, which is behind the anti-NULL-ers like Chris Date. I'm on the other side of that argument (the Codd side) and have no problem with the idea that nil represents a "non-value," especially in favor of fabrications like 9/9/99. That's what nil was designed to do. I've used languages without it (e.g. C) and I'm glad to have it. But as I indicated above, this isn't an argument that's going to get won any time soon. :)
  reply