The null pointer is considered to be a “billion-dollar mistake“. I have been wondering why there is such a notion until I saw the video where Tony Hoare claims it to be his mistake. In fact, he didn’t really say that null pointer should not be used.
From this video, you can see that introducing null reference is not really a mistake. On the contrary, null references are helpful and sometimes indispensable. The mistake is not in the existence of the null pointers, but in how the type system treats them. Unfortunately, most languages (C++, Java, C#, …) don’t treat them correctly.
Every class type A of Java is in fact a union type {A, null}, because you can use null where an A object is expected. {A, null} is almost equivalent to the Maybe type of Haskell, where null corresponds to Nothing of Haskell. So the trouble really is that an annotation like {String, null} should be distinguished from String, so that it will be clear whether null can possibly be its value.
Unfortunately most languages don’t provide a convenient union type that you can put String and null together (Typed Racket is an exception). If Java is to have union types, we can say something like:
{String, null} find1() {
if (...) {
return "okay";
} else {
return null;
}
}
This is saying: find1 may return a name which is a String, or it may return nothing. Because of the union type {String, null}, the type system knows that you should check for null when you have called find(), so it will force you to write a null check:
String s = find();
if (s != null) {
x = s.length();
}
In comparison, if we define a slightly different function find2, with a different return type:
String find2() {
...
return "okay";
}
From the return type we know that find2 will never return null, so the type checker can let you you use the String without checking:
String s = find(); x = s.length();
Surely I Am Joking 