(no subject)

[dr_tectonic]

You know, if you could just call null.toString() and have it return "null" instead of throwing an exception, in exactly the way it behaves when you call "some string "+null, I would hate Java so much less...

Comments

[toosuto.livejournal.com]

that is lame.

[navrins]

That would be nice.

(Currently wrestling with javax.swing.undo.*)

[dr-tectonic.livejournal.com]

!?! Bleeeeaah! Beemer.setEnvy(bcb, false);

[eto-theipi.livejournal.com]

Where do you go from there? Should null support the entire API for Object? What if I want to override the default NullObject's to.String() behavior? Can I set null = myObject? Madness!

[dr-tectonic.livejournal.com]

Well, if we got rid of primitives entirely, null would be an Object just like everything else.

It wouldn't be extensible, so you couldn't inherit/override, and of course you can overwrite any reference to null, but it's probably a lot easier to just look at smalltalk and objective-c to figure out what the right answers to such questions are.

But, it's the *best*

[(Anonymous)]

[sarcasm font|Scott voice enabled] Java's *perfect*? Why would you use *any* other language? Are you mad? And, nobody uses Perl, that's the silliest language *ever.*[/sarcasm/Scott]

Sorry. Had a flashback...

k8

[eto-theipi.livejournal.com]

But wouldn't it be neat to be able to call null.getClass() and start adding methods? Fun!

[flwyd.livejournal.com]

There is, of course, the school of thought which says you should create static NULL objects for your classes and use those. Then you can wrap String in a class with your own convenience methods.

[dr-tectonic.livejournal.com]

I call that an abuse of the word "convenient".