Here’s my real-world example for why type-level null checking is a good idea.

Let’s say your application tracks users, and each user needs to have at least one address. On top of that, they must flag one address as their default address, which is used when sending them formal communication, but usually they can pick which address they want to use. (Most people have one address which is their default).

The Java code to pick out a user’s default address is simple enough:

class User {
// ...

public Address getDefaultAddress() {
for (Address address : getAddresses()) {
if (address.isDefault()) {
return address;
}
}

throw new AssertionError("User has no default address");
}
}

We throw an AssertionError here instead of returning null because if a user has no default address, then that’s a bug in the program, and we want to fix it. And because it throws, we can safely assume that any address coming out of getDefaultAddress is not null.

Then one day we receive a change request from a client. Some users move around a lot, and have no permanent address, and they’d like it to be changed from at least one address to at least zero addresses. Basically, make it so users don’t have to have an address anymore.

How does this affect our getDefaultAddress function? It has to handle the case where users have no addresses, because if that’s the case, then they’ll have no default address, either.

The easiest way to do it is just return null instead:

public Address getDefaultAddress() {
for (Address address : getAddresses()) {
if (address.isDefault()) {
return address;
}
}

// no default address
return null;
}

With this in place can no longer assume that the Address returned from getDefaultAddress() is an actual Address object. Which means that all the code we’ve written so far -- the code that assumes that the method doesn’t return null -- will break. So we have to find every place in the code where this method is called, and make sure that it does a null check. IDEs can help here, but they can’t help with developers who hadn’t noticed the change and continue using the method in the old way, or places where the method is called with reflection... and do you really want to test every call site to make sure you’re handling it correctly?

Or we can use Optionals:

public Optional<Address> getDefaultAddress() {
for (Address address : getAddresses()) {
if (address.isDefault()) {
return Optional.of(address);
}
}

// I know I could use Java 8 streams here, just go with it :)
return Optional.empty();
}

The Optionals aren’t the most important part of this example -- it’s that the method signature changed. Our program will now no longer compile until each and every place in the code that gets a default address has been updated to specifically handle the case where there is none, because the compiler won’t accept an Optional<Address> where it expects an Address. A developer who hadn’t seen the change won’t be able to use the function in the old way by accident, as it won’t compile.

This is precisely what happened to us. Changing the method to return null resulted in lots of breakage from code that we forgot to add null checks to and code written afterwards using the old signature by accident. Changing it to return an Optional meant we were forced to update everything, otherwise it wouldn’t compile. No runtime bugs. No developer slip-ups. That’s why I’m in Team Optional.