I really like nullable types, they can be very effective for writing safer code.
Sometimes there are good reasons to separate object construction and initialization (e.g. composite / loosely coupled objects, or encapsulation of 3rd party libraries) so there can be properties/fields that do not yet have valid values, and using separate queries for this is error prone.
I write a lot of communication interfaces for sensors/actuators and if the communication drops, nullables are a good way to represent invalid readings.
Being able to convey the value and validity in one variable can be more thread-safe and easier to write pure-functions, and show intent.
I occasionally use a nullable for singleton patterns if I’m not 100% convinced there can never be multiple instances, rather than painting myself into a corner with a static class. e.g.
I really like nullable types, they can be very effective for writing safer code.
Sometimes there are good reasons to separate object construction and initialization (e.g. composite / loosely coupled objects, or encapsulation of 3rd party libraries) so there can be properties/fields that do not yet have valid values, and using separate queries for this is error prone.
I write a lot of communication interfaces for sensors/actuators and if the communication drops, nullables are a good way to represent invalid readings.
Being able to convey the value and validity in one variable can be more thread-safe and easier to write pure-functions, and show intent.
I occasionally use a nullable for singleton patterns if I’m not 100% convinced there can never be multiple instances, rather than painting myself into a corner with a static class. e.g.
public static MyClass Instance => _instance ??= new(); private static MyClass? _instance;Those who are trying to avoid milk should consider using
Lazy<MyClass> _instance;