> That said Null is still a valid response. [...] I'd expect to return Null or Default if available for an unset property. There are many cases for null but that doesn't mean that it isn't abused.
We use a `Maybe<X>` return type that can handle returning a value (including `null`), an absence of value, or an exception. It extends `Optional<X>` and adds a new `isPresent()` method, and wraps the exception in such a way that the result `isAbsent()` and calling `get()` will rethrow the exception. Very useful...
Removing null does not make your code more safe. Wrapping Null in more code does not make your code more safe.
You get null for free. I could write the same think that optionals do in Java with 1 static method
public static boolean isAbsent(Object o) { return o == null; }
public static <T> T get(T o) {
if (isAbsent(o)) throw new RuntimeException();
return o;
}
Now you get your nice abstraction from an inlined function. Wrapping it in an object in my opinion is bloat around seomthing that doesn't need it.
The best chance your have to sell all Java devs on something is @Nullable which is a fantastic idea. It lets you know where null WILL propegate so you know where to control it. IT will also help you get out of "I see NullPointerException so therefor null is the problem, not my code!"
We use a `Maybe<X>` return type that can handle returning a value (including `null`), an absence of value, or an exception. It extends `Optional<X>` and adds a new `isPresent()` method, and wraps the exception in such a way that the result `isAbsent()` and calling `get()` will rethrow the exception. Very useful...