如果返回的对象是可以迭代的对象，我将返回一个空对象，这样我就不必首先测试null。

例子:

bool IsAdministrator(User user)
{
    var groupsOfUser = GetGroupsOfUser(user);

    // This foreach would cause a run time exception if groupsOfUser is null.
    foreach (var groupOfUser in groupsOfUser) 
    {
        if (groupOfUser.Name == "Administrators")
        {
            return true;
        }
    }

    return false;
}

我同意这里的大多数帖子，它们趋向于零。

我的理由是，生成一个具有非空属性的空对象可能会导致错误。例如，具有int ID属性的实体的初始值为ID = 0，这是一个完全有效的值。如果这个对象，在某些情况下，被保存到数据库中，这将是一件坏事。

对于任何带有迭代器的东西，我总是使用空集合。类似的

foreach (var eachValue in collection ?? new List<Type>(0))

在我看来是代码的味道。集合属性永远不应该为空。

An edge case is String. Many people say, String.IsNullOrEmpty isn't really necessary, but you cannot always distinguish between an empty string and null. Furthermore, some database systems (Oracle) won't distinguish between them at all ('' gets stored as DBNULL), so you're forced to handle them equally. The reason for that is, most string values either come from user input or from external systems, while neither textboxes nor most exchange formats have different representations for '' and null. So even if the user wants to remove a value, he cannot do anything more than clearing the input control. Also the distinction of nullable and non-nullable nvarchar database fields is more than questionable, if your DBMS is not oracle - a mandatory field that allows '' is weird, your UI would never allow this, so your constraints do not map. So the answer here, in my opinion is, handle them equally, always.

Concerning your question regarding exceptions and performance: If you throw an exception which you cannot handle completely in your program logic, you have to abort, at some point, whatever your program is doing, and ask the user to redo whatever he just did. In that case, the performance penalty of a catch is really the least of your worries - having to ask the user is the elephant in the room (which means re-rendering the whole UI, or sending some HTML through the internet). So if you don't follow the anti-pattern of "Program Flow with Exceptions", don't bother, just throw one if it makes sense. Even in borderline cases, such as "Validation Exception", performance is really not an issue, since you have to ask the user again, in any case.

有趣的问题，我认为没有“正确”的答案，因为它总是取决于你的代码的职责。您的方法是否知道没有找到的数据是否存在问题?在大多数情况下，答案是“不”，这就是为什么返回null并让调用者处理他的情况是完美的。

也许区分抛出方法和返回null方法的一个好方法是在您的团队中找到一个约定:如果没有得到任何东西，表示它们“得到”某些东西的方法应该抛出异常。可能返回null的方法可以以不同的方式命名，可能是“Find…”。

异步TryGet模式:

对于同步方法，我相信@Johann Gerell的回答是适用于所有情况的模式。

但是带有out参数的TryGet模式不适用于Async方法。

使用c# 7的元组文字，你现在可以这样做:

async Task<(bool success, SomeObject o)> TryGetSomeObjectByIdAsync(Int32 id)
{
    if (InternalIdExists(id))
    {
        o = await InternalGetSomeObjectAsync(id);

        return (true, o);
    }
    else
    {
        return (false, default(SomeObject));
    }
}

我倾向于

如果对象id不存在，在不知道它是否应该存在时返回null。 当对象id应该存在时，如果对象id不存在则抛出。

我用这三种类型的方法来区分这两种场景。 第一:

Boolean TryGetSomeObjectById(Int32 id, out SomeObject o)
{
    if (InternalIdExists(id))
    {
        o = InternalGetSomeObject(id);

        return true;
    }
    else
    {
        return false;
    }
}

第二:

SomeObject FindSomeObjectById(Int32 id)
{
    SomeObject o;

    return TryGetObjectById(id, out o) ? o : null;
}

第三:

SomeObject GetSomeObjectById(Int32 id)
{
    SomeObject o;

    if (!TryGetObjectById(id, out o))
    {
        throw new SomeAppropriateException();
    }

    return o;
}

我个人会返回null，因为这是我所期望的DAL/Repository层的操作方式。

如果它不存在，不要返回任何可以被解释为成功获取对象的东西，null在这里工作得很好。

最重要的是在你的DAL/Repos层保持一致，这样你就不会对如何使用它感到困惑。