我认为Guava Optional和他们的维基页面说得很好:

Besides the increase in readability that comes from giving null a name, the biggest advantage of Optional is its idiot-proof-ness. It forces you to actively think about the absent case if you want your program to compile at all, since you have to actively unwrap the Optional and address that case. Null makes it disturbingly easy to simply forget things, and though FindBugs helps, we don't think it addresses the issue nearly as well. This is especially relevant when you're returning values that may or may not be "present." You (and others) are far more likely to forget that other.method(a, b) could return a null value than you're likely to forget that a could be null when you're implementing other.method. Returning Optional makes it impossible for callers to forget that case, since they have to unwrap the object themselves for their code to compile. -- (Source: Guava Wiki - Using and Avoiding null - What's the point?)

可选增加了一些开销，但我认为它的明显优势是使其显式化 一个对象可能不存在，它强制程序员处理这种情况。它可以防止有人忘记心爱的人!=空支票。

以2为例，我认为这是更明确的代码:

if(soundcard.isPresent()){
  System.out.println(soundcard.get());
}

比

if(soundcard != null){
  System.out.println(soundcard);
}

对我来说，可选的更好地抓住了没有声卡的事实。

我对你的观点有2个看法:

public Optional<Foo> findFoo(String id); - I am not sure about this. Maybe I would return a Result<Foo> which might be empty or contain a Foo. It is a similar concept, but not really an Optional. public Foo doSomething(String id, Optional<Bar> barOptional); - I would prefer @Nullable and a findbugs check, as in Peter Lawrey's answer - see also this discussion. Your book example - I am not sure if I would use the Optional internally, that might depend on the complexity. For the "API" of a book, I would use an Optional<Index> getIndex() to explicitly indicate that the book might not have an index. I would not use it in collections, rather not allowing null values in collections

一般来说，我会尽量减少传递null值。(一旦烧…) 我认为有必要找到适当的抽象，并向程序员同事指出某个返回值实际代表什么。

可选类让你避免使用null，并提供一个更好的选择:

这鼓励开发人员检查是否存在，以避免未捕获的NullPointerException。 API有了更好的文档记录，因为它可以看到，在哪里可以期望那些可能缺失的值。

Optional为进一步处理对象提供了方便的API: isPresent ();get ();orElse ();orElseGet ();orElseThrow ();map ();filter ();flatmap()。

此外，许多框架积极地使用这种数据类型并从它们的API中返回它。

Optional与Iterator设计模式的不可修改实例具有类似的语义:

它可能引用也可能不引用对象(如isPresent()所给出的) 如果它确实引用了一个对象，则可以解除引用(使用get()) 但是它不能被提升到序列中的下一个位置(它没有next()方法)。

因此，在您以前可能考虑使用Java迭代器的情况下，请考虑返回或传递一个Optional。

似乎Optional只有在Optional中的类型T是int、long、char等基本类型时才有用。对于“真正的”类，这对我来说没有意义，因为你可以使用空值。

我认为它是从这里(或从另一个类似的语言概念)。

Nullable < T >

在c#中，这个Nullable<T>很久以前就被引入到换行值类型中。

就我个人而言，我更喜欢使用IntelliJ的代码检查工具来使用@NotNull和@Nullable检查，因为这些检查主要是在编译时进行的(可以有一些运行时检查)，这在代码可读性和运行时性能方面具有较低的开销。它不像使用Optional那样严格，但是这种缺乏严格性应该得到适当的单元测试的支持。

public @Nullable Foo findFoo(@NotNull String id);

public @NotNull Foo doSomething(@NotNull String id, @Nullable Bar barOptional);

public class Book {

  private List<Pages> pages;
  private @Nullable Index index;

}

List<@Nullable Foo> list = ..

这适用于Java 5，不需要包装和展开值。(或创建包装器对象)

这里有一个关于……的有趣用法(我认为)。测试。

我打算对我的一个项目进行大量测试，因此我构建断言;只是有些事我必须核实，有些事我不需要。

因此，我构建了一些东西来断言，并使用断言来验证它们，如下所示:

public final class NodeDescriptor<V>
{
    private final Optional<String> label;
    private final List<NodeDescriptor<V>> children;

    private NodeDescriptor(final Builder<V> builder)
    {
        label = Optional.fromNullable(builder.label);
        final ImmutableList.Builder<NodeDescriptor<V>> listBuilder
            = ImmutableList.builder();
        for (final Builder<V> element: builder.children)
            listBuilder.add(element.build());
        children = listBuilder.build();
    }

    public static <E> Builder<E> newBuilder()
    {
        return new Builder<E>();
    }

    public void verify(@Nonnull final Node<V> node)
    {
        final NodeAssert<V> nodeAssert = new NodeAssert<V>(node);
        nodeAssert.hasLabel(label);
    }

    public static final class Builder<V>
    {
        private String label;
        private final List<Builder<V>> children = Lists.newArrayList();

        private Builder()
        {
        }

        public Builder<V> withLabel(@Nonnull final String label)
        {
            this.label = Preconditions.checkNotNull(label);
            return this;
        }

        public Builder<V> withChildNode(@Nonnull final Builder<V> child)
        {
            Preconditions.checkNotNull(child);
            children.add(child);
            return this;
        }

        public NodeDescriptor<V> build()
        {
            return new NodeDescriptor<V>(this);
        }
    }
}

在NodeAssert类中，我这样做:

public final class NodeAssert<V>
    extends AbstractAssert<NodeAssert<V>, Node<V>>
{
    NodeAssert(final Node<V> actual)
    {
        super(Preconditions.checkNotNull(actual), NodeAssert.class);
    }

    private NodeAssert<V> hasLabel(final String label)
    {
        final String thisLabel = actual.getLabel();
        assertThat(thisLabel).overridingErrorMessage(
            "node's label is null! I didn't expect it to be"
        ).isNotNull();
        assertThat(thisLabel).overridingErrorMessage(
            "node's label is not what was expected!\n"
            + "Expected: '%s'\nActual  : '%s'\n", label, thisLabel
        ).isEqualTo(label);
        return this;
    }

    NodeAssert<V> hasLabel(@Nonnull final Optional<String> label)
    {
        return label.isPresent() ? hasLabel(label.get()) : this;
    }
}

这意味着断言只在我想检查标签时才会触发!