2

Another one of my C# articles, this time about Nullable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CatPoop@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 Iโ€™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; 
[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Those who are trying to avoid milk should consider using Lazy<MyClass> _instance;

this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

C Sharp

1526 readers
5 users here now

A community about the C# programming language

Getting started

Useful resources

IDEs and code editors

Tools

Rules

Related communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS