Why is null considered an object in JavaScript?
Is checking
if ( object == null )
Do something
the same as
if ( !object )
Do something
?
And also:
What is the difference between null and undefined?
(name is undefined)
You: What is name? (*)
JavaScript: name? What's a name? I don't know what you're talking about. You haven't ever mentioned any name before. Are you seeing some other scripting language on the (client-)side?
name = null;
You: What is name?
JavaScript: I don't know.
In short; undefined is where no notion of the thing exists; it has no type, and it's never been referenced before in that scope; null is where the thing is known to exist, but it's not known what the value is.
One thing to remember is that null is not, conceptually, the same as false or "" or such, even if they equate after type casting, i.e.
name = false;
You: What is name?
JavaScript: Boolean false.
name = '';
You: What is name?
JavaScript: Empty string
*: name in this context is meant as a variable which has never been defined. It could be any undefined variable, however, name is a property of just about any HTML form element. It goes way, way back and was instituted well before id. It is useful because ids must be unique but names do not have to be.
The difference can be summarized into this snippet:
alert(typeof(null)); // object
alert(typeof(undefined)); // undefined
alert(null !== undefined) //true
alert(null == undefined) //true
Checking
object == null is different to check if ( !object ).
The latter is equal to ! Boolean(object), because the unary ! operator automatically cast the right operand into a Boolean.
Since Boolean(null) equals false then !false === true.
So if your object is not null, but false or 0 or "", the check will pass
because:
alert(Boolean(null)) //false
alert(Boolean(0)) //false
alert(Boolean("")) //false
null is not an object, it is a primitive value. For example, you cannot add properties to it. Sometimes people wrongly assume that it is an object, because typeof null returns "object". But that is actually a bug (that might even be fixed in ECMAScript 6).
The difference between null and undefined is as follows:
undefined: used by JavaScript and means “no value”. Uninitialized variables, missing parameters and unknown variables have that value.
> var noValueYet;
> console.log(noValueYet);
undefined
> function foo(x) { console.log(x) }
> foo()
undefined
> var obj = {};
> console.log(obj.unknownProperty)
undefined
Accessing unknown variables, however, produces an exception:
> unknownVariable
ReferenceError: unknownVariable is not defined
null: used by programmers to indicate “no value”, e.g. as a parameter to a function.
Examining a variable:
console.log(typeof unknownVariable === "undefined"); // true
var foo;
console.log(typeof foo === "undefined"); // true
console.log(foo === undefined); // true
var bar = null;
console.log(bar === null); // true
As a general rule, you should always use === and never == in JavaScript (== performs all kinds of conversions that can produce unexpected results). The check x == null is an edge case, because it works for both null and undefined:
> null == null
true
> undefined == null
true
A common way of checking whether a variable has a value is to convert it to boolean and see whether it is true. That conversion is performed by the if statement and the boolean operator ! (“not”).
function foo(param) {
if (param) {
// ...
}
}
function foo(param) {
if (! param) param = "abc";
}
function foo(param) {
// || returns first operand that can't be converted to false
param = param || "abc";
}
Drawback of this approach: All of the following values evaluate to false, so you have to be careful (e.g., the above checks can’t distinguish between undefined and 0).
undefined, null
Booleans: false
Numbers: +0, -0, NaN
Strings: ""
You can test the conversion to boolean by using Boolean as a function (normally it is a constructor, to be used with new):
> Boolean(null)
false
> Boolean("")
false
> Boolean(3-3)
false
> Boolean({})
true
> Boolean([])
true
What is the difference between null and undefined??
A property when it has no definition is undefined. a null is an object. Its type is object. null is a special value meaning "no value. undefined is not an object, its type is undefined.
You can declare a variable, set it to null, and the behavior is identical except that you'll see "null" printed out versus "undefined". You can even compare a variable that is undefined to null or vice versa, and the condition will be true:
undefined == null
null == undefined
Refer to JavaScript Difference between null and undefined for more detail.
and with your new edit yes
if (object == null) does mean the same if(!object)
when testing if object is false, they both only meet the condition when testing if false, but not when true
Check here: Javascript gotcha
First part of the question:
Why is null considered an object in JavaScript?
It is a JavaScript design error they can't fix now. It should have been type null, not type object, or not have it at all. It necessitates an extra check (sometimes forgotten) when detecting real objects and is source of bugs.
Second part of the question:
Is checking
if (object == null)
Do something
the same as
if (!object)
Do something
The two checks are always both false except for:
object is undefined or null: both true.
object is primitive, and 0, "", or false: first check false, second true.
If the object is not a primitive, but a real Object, like new Number(0), new String(""), or new Boolean(false), then both checks are false.
So if 'object' is interpreted to mean a real Object then both checks are always the same. If primitives are allowed then the checks are different for 0, "", and false.
In cases like object==null, the unobvious results could be a source of bugs. Use of == is not recommended ever, use === instead.
Third part of the question:
And also:
What is the difference between null and undefined?
In JavaScript, one difference is that null is of type object and undefined is of type undefined.
In JavaScript, null==undefined is true, and considered equal if type is ignored. Why they decided that, but 0, "" and false aren't equal, I don't know. It seems to be an arbitrary opinion.
In JavaScript, null===undefined is not true since the type must be the same in ===.
In reality, null and undefined are identical, since they both represent non-existence. So do 0, and "" for that matter too, and maybe the empty containers [] and {}. So many types of the same nothing are a recipe for bugs. One type or none at all is better. I would try to use as few as possible.
'false', 'true', and '!' are another bag of worms that could be simplified, for example, if(!x) and if(x) alone are sufficient, you don't need true and false.
A declared var x is type undefined if no value is given, but it should be the same as if x was never declared at all. Another bug source is an empty nothing container. So it is best to declare and define it together, like var x=1.
People are going round and round in circles trying to figure out all these various types of nothing, but it's all just the same thing in complicated different clothes. The reality is
undefined===undeclared===null===0===""===[]==={}===nothing
And maybe all should throw exceptions.
TLDR
undefined is a primitive value in JavaScript that indicates the implicit absence of a value. Uninitialized variables automatically have this value, and functions without an explicit return statement, return undefined.
null is also a primitive value in JavaScript. It indicates the intentional absence of an object value. null in JavaScript was designed to enable interoperability with Java.
typeof null returns "object" because of a peculiarity in the design of the language, stemming from the demand that JavaScript be interoperable with Java. It does not mean null is an instance of an object. It means: given the tree of primitive types in JavaScript, null is part of the "object-type primitive" subtree. This is explained more fully below.
Details
undefined is a primitive value that represents the implicit absence of a value. Note that undefined was not directly accessible until JavaScript 1.3 in 1998. This tells us that null was intended to be the value used by programmers when explicitly indicating the absence of a value. Uninitialized variables automatically have the value undefined. undefined is a one-of-a-kind type in the ECMAScript specification.
null is a primitive value that represents the intentional absence of an object value. null is also a one-of-a-kind type in the ECMAScript specification.
null in JavaScript was designed with a view to enable interoperability with Java, both from a "look" perspective, and from a programmatic perspective (eg the LiveConnect Java/JS bridge planned for 1996). Both Brendan Eich and others have since expressed distaste at the inclusion of two "absence of value" values, but in 1995 Eich was under orders to "make [JavaScript] look like Java".
Brendan Eich:
If I didn't have "Make it look like Java" as an order from management,
and I had more time (hard to unconfound these two causal factors), then I would have preferred a Self-like "everything's an object"
approach: no Boolean, Number, String wrappers. No undefined and null.
Sigh.
In order to accommodate Java's concept of null which, due to the strongly-typed nature of Java, can only be assigned to variables typed to a reference type (rather primitives), Eich chose to position the special null value at the top of the object prototype chain (i.e. the top of the reference types), and to include the null type as part of the set of "object-type primitives".
The typeof operator was added shortly thereafter in JavaScript 1.1, released on 19th August 1996.
From the V8 blog:
typeof null returns object, and not null, despite null being a
type of its own. To understand why, consider that the set of all
JavaScript types is divided into two groups:
objects (i.e. the Object type)
primitives (i.e. any non-object value)
As such, null means “no object value”, whereas undefined means “no
value”.
Following this line of thought, Brendan Eich designed JavaScript to
make typeof return 'object' for all values on the right-hand side,
i.e. all objects and null values, in the spirit of Java. That’s why
typeof null === 'object' despite the spec having a separate null type.
So Eich designed the hierarchy of primitive types to enable interoperability with Java. This led to him positioning null along with the "object-type primitives" on the hierarchy. To reflect this, when typeof was added to the language shortly thereafter, he chose typeof null to return "object".
The surprise expressed by JavaScript developers at typeof null === "object" is the result of an impedance mismatch (or abstraction leak) between a weakly-typed language (JavaScript) that has both null and undefined, and another, strongly-typed language (Java) that only has null, and in which null is strictly defined to refer to a reference type (not a primitive type).
Note that this is all logical, reasonable and defensible. typeof null === "object" is not a bug, but a second-order effect of having to accommodate Java interoperability.
A number of imperfect backwards rationalisations and/or conventions have emerged, including that undefined indicates implicit absence of a value, and that null indicates intentional absence of a value; or that undefined is the absence of a value, and null is specifically the absence of an object value.
A relevant conversation with Brendan Eich, screenshotted for posterity:
typeof null; // object
typeof undefined; // undefined
The value null represents the intentional absence of any object value. It is one of JavaScript's primitive values and is treated as falsy for boolean operations.
var x = null;
var y;
x is declared & defined as null
y is declared but not defined. It is declared with no value so it is undefined.
z is not declared so would also be undefined if you attempted to use z.
One way to make sense of null and undefined is to understand where each occurs.
Expect a null return value in the following situations:
Methods that query the DOM
console.log(window.document.getElementById("nonExistentElement"));
//Prints: null
JSON responses received from an Ajax request
{
name: "Bob",
address: null
}
RegEx.exec.
New functionality that is in a state of flux. The following returns null:
var proto = Object.getPrototypeOf(Object.getPrototypeOf({}));
// But this returns undefined:
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor({}, "a");
All other cases of non-existence are denoted by undefined (as noted by #Axel). Each of the following prints "undefined":
var uninitalised;
console.log(uninitalised);
var obj = {};
console.log(obj.nonExistent);
function missingParam(missing){
console.log(missing);
}
missingParam();
var arr = [];
console.log(arr.pop());
Of course if you decide to write var unitialised = null; or return null from a method yourself then you have null occurring in other situations. But that should be pretty obvious.
A third case is when you want to access a variable but you don't even know if it has been declared. For that case use typeof to avoid a reference error:
if(typeof unknown !== "undefined"){
//use unknown
}
In summary check for null when you are manipulating the DOM, dealing with Ajax, or using certain ECMAScript 5 features. For all other cases it is safe to check for undefined with strict equality:
if(value === undefined){
// stuff
}
Comparison of many different null checks in JavaScript:
http://jsfiddle.net/aaronhoffman/DdRHB/5/
// Variables to test
var myNull = null;
var myObject = {};
var myStringEmpty = "";
var myStringWhiteSpace = " ";
var myStringHello = "hello";
var myIntZero = 0;
var myIntOne = 1;
var myBoolTrue = true;
var myBoolFalse = false;
var myUndefined;
...trim...
http://aaron-hoffman.blogspot.com/2013/04/javascript-null-checking-undefined-and.html
To add to the answer of What is the differrence between undefined and null, from JavaScript Definitive Guide 6th Edition, p.41 on this page:
You might consider undefined to represent system-level, unexpected,
or error-like absense of value and null to represent program-level,
normal, or expected absence of value. If you need to assign one of
these values to a variable or property or pass one of these values to
a function, null is almost always the right choice.
null and undefined are both false for value equality (null==undefined): they both collapse to boolean false. They are not the same object (null!==undefined).
undefined is a property of the global object ("window" in browsers), but is a primitive type and not an object itself. It's the default value for uninitialized variables and functions ending without a return statement.
null is an instance of Object. null is used for DOM methods that return collection objects to indicate an empty result, which provides a false value without indicating an error.
Some precisions:
null and undefined are two different values. One is representing the absence of a value for a name and the other is representing the absence of a name.
What happens in an if goes as follows for if( o ):
The expression in the parentheses o is evaluated, and then the if kicks in type-coercing the value of the expression in the parentheses - in our case o.
Falsy (that will get coerced to false) values in JavaScript are: '', null, undefined, 0, and false.
The following function shows why and is capable for working out the difference:
function test() {
var myObj = {};
console.log(myObj.myProperty);
myObj.myProperty = null;
console.log(myObj.myProperty);
}
If you call
test();
You're getting
undefined
null
The first console.log(...) tries to get myProperty from myObj while it is not yet defined - so it gets back "undefined". After assigning null to it, the second console.log(...) returns obviously "null" because myProperty exists, but it has the value null assigned to it.
In order to be able to query this difference, JavaScript has null and undefined: While null is - just like in other languages an object, undefined cannot be an object because there is no instance (even not a null instance) available.
For example window.someWeirdProperty is undefined, so
"window.someWeirdProperty === null" evaluates to false while
"window.someWeirdProperty === undefined" evaluates to true.
Moreover checkif if (!o) is not the same as checking if (o == null) for o being false.
In Javascript null is not an object type it is a primitave type.
What is the difference?
Undefined refers to a pointer that has not been set.
Null refers to the null pointer for example something has manually set a variable to be of type null
Look at this:
<script>
function f(a){
alert(typeof(a));
if (a==null) alert('null');
a?alert(true):alert(false);
}
</script>
//return:
<button onclick="f()">nothing</button> //undefined null false
<button onclick="f(null)">null</button> //object null false
<button onclick="f('')">empty</button> //string false
<button onclick="f(0)">zero</button> //number false
<button onclick="f(1)">int</button> //number true
<button onclick="f('x')">str</button> //string true
From "The Principles of Object-Oriented Javascript" by Nicholas C. Zakas
But why an object when the type is null? (In fact, this has been acknowledged as an error by TC39, the committee that designs and maintains JavaScript. You could reason that null is an empty object pointer, making "object" a logical return value, but that’s still confusing.)
Zakas, Nicholas C. (2014-02-07). The Principles of Object-Oriented JavaScript (Kindle Locations 226-227). No Starch Press. Kindle Edition.
That said:
var game = null; //typeof(game) is "object"
game.score = 100;//null is not an object, what the heck!?
game instanceof Object; //false, so it's not an instance but it's type is object
//let's make this primitive variable an object;
game = {};
typeof(game);//it is an object
game instanceof Object; //true, yay!!!
game.score = 100;
Undefined case:
var score; //at this point 'score' is undefined
typeof(score); //'undefined'
var score.player = "felix"; //'undefined' is not an object
score instanceof Object; //false, oh I already knew that.
null is an object. Its type is null. undefined is not an object; its type is undefined.
The best way to think about 'null' is to recall how the similar concept is used in databases, where it indicates that a field contains "no value at all."
Yes, the item's value is known; it is 'defined.' It has been initialized.
The item's value is: "there is no value."
This is a very useful technique for writing programs that are more-easily debugged. An 'undefined' variable might be the result of a bug ... (how would you know?) ... but if the variable contains the value 'null,' you know that "someone, somewhere in this program, set it to 'null.'" Therefore, I suggest that, when you need to get rid of the value of a variable, don't "delete" ... set it to 'null.' The old value will be orphaned and soon will be garbage-collected; the new value is, "there is no value (now)." In both cases, the variable's state is certain: "it obviously, deliberately, got that way."
The other fun thing about null, compared to undefined, is that it can be incremented.
x = undefined
x++
y = null
y++
console.log(x) // NaN
console.log(y) // 0
This is useful for setting default numerical values for counters. How many times have you set a variable to -1 in its declaration?
Undefined means a variable has been declared but it has not been assigned any value while Null can be assigned to a variable representing "no value".(Null is an assignment operator)
2.Undefined is a type itself while Null is an object.
3.Javascript can itself initialize any unassigned variable to undefined but it can never set value of a variable to null. This has to be done programatically.
What is a type?
A type is a way to categorize values. Here is a table with the types in question and their typeof result.
Type
Values type contains
typeof result
Is typeof result a lie?
Undefined
Only: undefined
"undefined"
No
Null
Only: null
"object"
Yes
Object
Infinite amount of values: {}, {a: "b"}, ...
"object"
No
null is not an object, its a value of type Null.
The typeof operator is lying! It returning "object" for null is a mistake in the JavaScript language.
I wrote a chapter about this in my open-source e-book. You can read it here https://github.com/carltheperson/advanced-js-objects
Use null to define something as having no value, use undefined when you expect something might not be defined at all.
For example, if a variable has no value, assign it as null.
var weDontHaveAValue = null;
If you expect that something might be not defined at all, e.g. an optional options argument, use undefined.
if (typeof args.optionalParam !== 'undefined') { }
The main difference between null and undefined is that null represents
a missing object, while undefined represents an uninitialized state of a variable.
You can think of null as an undefined object but undefined will be undefined only
since its type is undefined.
let a;
console.log(a); //undefined, since it is declared but not initialized
console.log(null == undefined) //true
console.log(null === undefined) // false
console.log(typeof null) //object
console.log(typeof undefined) //undefined
Not defined and undefined are not the same thing happening.
age;
You: What is the value of age?
Computer: Okay, let me check my memory/reference table..... at this point (the time of you asking), i do not see any identifier named age, not in this scope/context or any parent scope/context; age is not known to me. Maybe later i will come across an instruction to add that identifier to memory, but it does not exist right now.
var age;
You: What is the value of age;
Computer: Okay, checking my memory... I see an identifier in my reference table with that name age but no value or pointer or anything was assigned to it at the time i added it, so i don't know; you can consider it (age) empty/nothing/useless.
var age = null;
You: What is the value of age;
Computer: Okay, checking my memory... i see age in my reference table: it is null. Basically, it is nothing/empty, you cannot do anything with this value; this was intentional.
Now, i probably should not explain it this way but hopefully it will make sense.
I can see why null was designed to be an object in JS, and i personally like it that way.
null and undefined practically means the same thing: empty/nothing. The difference is in how it is used conceptually.
I look at null as developer-intended nothingness; something being null was done on purpose to represent nothing. I look at undefined as computer-intended nothingness; something not having value by accident of the developer/user.
For example, if you call a function from a library/sdk and got back null, you can almost be sure that was designed on purpose by the developer/author; they specifically wanted to indicate nothingness.
Also see - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/null
Given this function:
var test = function(param1, param2_maybe_not_set) {
var my_object = {};
// code here...
}
What's the best, in your opinion?
my_object.new_key = (param2_maybe_not_set === undefined) ? null : param2_maybe_not_set;
OR
my_object.new_key = (param2_maybe_not_set === void 0) ? null : param2_maybe_not_set;
OR
my_object.new_key = (typeof param2_maybe_not_set === 'undefined') ? null : param2_maybe_not_set;
Alternatively, would this shortened expression be correct?
my_object.new_key = param2_maybe_not_set || null;
All four methods work (in the NodeJS console at least). Also jsPerf doesn't show a big gap between any of these (http://jsperf.com/typeof-performance/8)
Which one should be used, as a good practice?
They are not strictly equivalent, but can often be used interchangeably. Here are the major differences between them:
x === undefined: this performs a strict-equality comparison between the value and undefined, meaning that only a actual value of undefined will be true, whereas similar values like null or 0 will be false.
In the case of a function call, this check does not differentiate between f(a) and f(a, undefined) (in fact, none of the examples will; to differentiate, you'll have to look at arguments).
x === void 0: this uses the void keyword, which evaluates any expression and returns undefined. This was mostly done in the olden days to prevent surprises from people redefining the global undefined variable, but is not so useful nowadays (ECMAScript 5 mandates that undefined be read-only)
typeof x === 'undefined': this uses the typeof keyword, which has a unique ability - namely, that the operand is unevaluated. This means that something like typeof foobarbaz returns 'undefined' even if no such variable foobarbaz exists at all. Contrast this with foobarbaz === undefined, which will throw a ReferenceError if the variable name has never been declared.
x || null: this is the simplest and probably most readable alternative. The || operator is often used to "set defaults" on arguments, and can be chained like x || y || z || null.
In most cases, this is the idiomatic technique used. However, note that || performs implicit conversions, which means that any "falsy" values will trigger the next value (meaning that it can't differentiate between undefined, false, null, 0, '', and NaN). So, if your function expects to receive falsy values as arguments, it may be more prudent to explicitly check for undefined.
The option chosen to be an idiom in Javascript development to force a value for an unspecified argument is actually the last:
my_object.new_key = param2_maybe_not_set || null;
So this one should be preferrable since a lot of Javascript developers will immediately get its purpose.
Best.
I have learnt recently while debugging, that undefined is a data type and null is an object.
I think both of them comes under datatypes.
I checked the typeof undefined and typeof null. They returned "undefined" and "object" respectively.
typeof undefined
"undefined"
typeof null
"object"
Could some body explain why is this strange behaviour.
typeof null being object is an early mistake - when they tried correcting it in a Chrome nightly (to typeof null === "null" ) too many things relied on the current behavior and too much code broke.
JavaScript objects that are not set to normal values generally have three states:
Undeclared.
Undefined.
Explicitly nothing.
Undeclared
For example - this case:
y++; //I did not declare y before, this causes a reference error
y === 'undefined'; //still a reference error
typeof y; //'undefined', since typeof is an operator and not a function.
Basically, an undeclared variable is in the state 'the script does not know this variable'.
Undefined
This means that the the runtime 'knows this variable' but it wasn't set to anything yet. Or, as the language specification puts this:
undefined value - primitive value used when a variable has not been assigned a value.
For example:
var y; //y is undefined
y === undefined; //true, y defined the line above
typeof y; //undefined, but this is redundant, just do `=== undefined`
(function(x){ /* x is undefined here as it was set to nothing*/})()
Explicitly nothing
When you have something that is supposed to have a value but you want to declare that it is nothing. Or, as the language specification puts this:
null value - primitive value that represents the intentional absence of any object value.
For example, document.getElementById("foo"); returns null if the element with the given ID is not in the DOM to indicate explicitly nothing was returned. Constrast this with functions that have no return statements so they return undefined which is the default.
They have different types for the same reason that they both exist: undefined and null are conceptually not the same thing.
As this answer puts it:
undefined is the lack of a type and value, and null is the lack of a value.
But I prefer to apply a real-world analogy: matter vs dark matter.
undefined is like matter that does not exist. It has no form or substance, and therefore has no meaningful type. You set something to undefined when that thing should not be deemed as existing.
null, on the other hand, right across the realm of Computer Science, describes an object of an unknown state. It's still an object, but we don't know what object or what its value is. (In this sense it is similar to the numeric NaN which is still conceptually a number: we just don't know what number.) Nullity serves a placeholder for an unknown value, not for something that has no value. It's dark matter that does exist, in the form of an object, but no further information about its type is available since we don't have any information on it.
JavaScript understands this. So, historically, typeof null has been 'object' and typeof undefined has been 'undefined'.
Some people say this is a legacy bug since the dawn of JavaScript; I prefer to say that it's common sense from the dawn of JavaScript.
What is a bug in JavaScript is that null === null, and var o = {x:undefined}; 'x' in o; // true, neither of which should be the case.
In the documentation on MDN this is the reason they give for null being an object:
typeof null === 'object'; // This stands since the beginning of JavaScript
Yeah! That is a good reason... I guess they don't understand it themselves, and therefore a design error.
Could somebody explain to me the difference between if(obj.x == undefined) and if(typeof obj.x == 'undefined')
In some context the first one works fine, but in other I need to use the second way.
Questions
1 - What is the difference between the two condition?
2 - Is there a best practice?
The best practice is to not just check the truthiness but the strict equality
example
if (obj.x === undefined) {}
this use to be an issue because undefined (a global property) use to be writable, as of 1.8.5 is is non-writable, providing you with a secure comparison in ES5 spec environments.
per MDN
The two would usually be equivalent if you replaced the equality operator == with the strict equality operator ===. So obj.x === undefined and typeof obj.x == "undefined" are usually equivalent.
However, in pre-ECMAScript 5 environments (which still acount for the majority of web requests, in general), undefined is a writable property of the global object, meaning that undefined may be used as variable name or the global property may be assigned a different value. ECMAScript 5 makes the global property read-only, but even then, undefined may still be used as variable name within a function, meaning that the typeof check is always safer.
One further point in favour of typeof is that it may be used to check for a variable that may not have been declared whereas a direct comparison will throw a ReferenceError if the variable has not been declared. For example:
typeof foo == "undefined" // true
foo === undefined // ReferenceError
However, this is an unusual and not generally helpful thing to be doing.
The two are not equivalent tests because of the quite convoluted handling of special values by javascript. In the specific
undefined == null
is true, but typeof undefined is "undefined" while typeof null is "object".
The rules for those special values are quite complex and IMO illogical, so I think there's no "general rule". What you may find are common forms, for example
var value = obj.x || default_value;
that can be used if you're sure that obj will never be undefined or null (because in that case an exception would be thrown) and assuming that 0, NaN or an empty string should be considered as if no value was provided (because they're all "logically false" values). An empty array or an empty javascript object instead are considered "logically true".
Why is it that way? Why does (null).x throw an exception when null according to typeof is apparently an object and searching for a non-existent field in an object normally returns undefined instead?
I've no idea.
I never tried to find a logic in all those strange rules. I'm not actually even 100% sure there's one.
My suggestion is just to study and experiment with them.
second is easier and faster than first. First requires additional setup, definition of undefined and check wheter obj contains x as a property or method. second makes the check whether obj.x has been whenever defined and assigned
PS.: undefined will be evaluated to null so
obj.x == undefined is equivalent to obj.x == null
the best way to test for conditionality isusing obj.x this checks for both null-ability and undefined .
Thus
if(!obj.x)
{
alert(obj.x);
}
else
{
alert("obj.x is null or undefined"); //obj.x is null or undefined or any false value which is what you want. like obj.x is false or 0
}
The main difference of these two condition is typeof
The typeof operator is used to get the data type (returns a string) of its operand. The operand can be either a literal or a data structure such as a variable, a function, or an object. The operator returns the data type.
if (typeof obj.x === 'undefined') {
txt = "x is undefined";
} else {
txt = "x is defined";
}
[Bounty Edit]
I'm looking for a good explanation when you should set/use null or undefined and where you need to check for it. Basically what are common practices for these two and is really possible to treat them separately in generic maintainable codee?
When can I safely check for === null, safely check for === undefined and when do I need to check for both with == null
When should you use the keyword undefined and when should one use the keyword null
I have various checks in the format of
if (someObj == null) or if (someObj != null) which check for both null and undefined. I would like to change all these to either === undefined or === null but I'm not sure how to guarantee that it will only ever be one of the two but not both.
Where should you use checks for null and where should you use checks for undefined
A concrete example:
var List = []; // ordered list contains data at odd indexes.
var getObject = function(id) {
for (var i = 0; i < List.length; i++) {
if (List[i] == null) continue;
if (id === List[i].getId()) {
return List[i];
}
}
return null;
}
var deleteObject = function(id) {
var index = getIndex(id) // pretty obvouis function
// List[index] = null; // should I set it to null?
delete List[index]; // should I set it to undefined?
}
This is just one example of where I can use both null or undefined and I don't know which is correct.
Are there any cases where you must check for both null and undefined because you have no choice?
Functions implicitly return undefined. Undefined keys in arrays are undefined. Undefined attributes in objects are undefined.
function foo () {
};
var bar = [];
var baz = {};
//foo() === undefined && bar[100] === undefined && baz.something === undefined
document.getElementById returns null if no elements are found.
var el = document.getElementById("foo");
// el === null || el instanceof HTMLElement
You should never have to check for undefined or null (unless you're aggregating data from both a source that may return null, and a source which may return undefined).
I recommend you avoid null; use undefined.
Some DOM methods return null. All properties of an object that have not been set return undefined when you attempt to access them, including properties of an Array. A function with no return statement implicitly returns undefined.
I would suggest making sure you know exactly what values are possible for the variable or property you're testing and testing for these values explicitly and with confidence. For testing null, use foo === null. For testing for undefined, I would recommend using typeof foo == "undefined" in most situations, because undefined (unlike null) is not a reserved word and is instead a simple property of the global object that may be altered, and also for other reasons I wrote about recently here: variable === undefined vs. typeof variable === "undefined"
The difference between null and undefined is that null is itself a value and has to be assigned. It's not the default. A brand new variable with no value assigned to it is undefined.
var x;
// value undefined - NOT null.
x = null;
// value null - NOT undefined.
I think it's interesting to note that, when Windows was first written, it didn't do a lot of checks for invalid/NULL pointers. Afterall, no programmer would be dumb enough to pass NULL where a valid string was needed. And testing for NULL just makes the code larger and slower.
The result was that many UAEs were due to errors in client programs, but all the heat went to Microsoft. Since then, Microsoft has changed Windows to pretty much check every argument for NULL.
I think the lesson is that, unless you are really sure an argument will always be valid, it's probably worth verifying that it is. Of course, Windows is used by a lot of programmers while your function may only be used by you. So that certainly factors in regarding how likely an invalid argument is.
In languages like C and C++, you can use ASSERTs and I use them ALL the time when using these languages. These are statements that verify certain conditions that you never expect to happen. During debugging, you can test that, in fact, they never do. Then when you do a release build these statements are not included in the compiled code. In some ways, this seems like the best of both worlds to me.
If you call a function with no explicit return then it implicitly returns undefined. So if I have a function that needs to say that it did its task and there is nothing result, e.g. a XMLHTTPRequest that returned nothing when you normally expect that there would be something (like a database call), then I would explicitly return null.
Undefined is different from null when using !== but not when using the weaker != because JavaScript does some implicit casting in this case.
The main difference between null and undefined is that undefined can also mean something which has not been assigned to.
undefined false
(SomeObject.foo) false false
(SomeObject.foo != null) false true
(SomeObject.foo !== null) true true
(SomeObject.foo != false) true false
(SomeObject.foo !== false) true false
This is taken from this weblog
The problem is that you claim to see the difference, but you don't. Take your example. It should really be:
var List = []; // ordered list contains data at odd indexes.
var getObject = function(id) {
for (var i = 1; i < List.length; i+=2) {
if (id === List[i].getId()) {
return List[i];
}
}
// returns undefined by default
}
Your algorithm is flawed because you check even indexes (even though you know there's nothing there), and you also misuse null as a return value.
These kind of functions should really return undefined because it means: there's no such data
And there you are in the heart of the problem. If you don't fully understand null and undefined and may use them wrongly sometimes, how can you be so sure that others will use it correctly? You can't.
Then there are Host objects with their nasty behavior, if you ask me, you better off checking for both. It doesn't hurt, in fact, it saves you some headaches dealing with third party code, or the aformentioned non-native objects.
Except for these two cases, in your own code, you can do what #bobince said:
Keep undefined as a special value for signalling when other languages might throw an exception instead.
When to set/use them...
Note that a method without a return statement returns undefined, you shouldn't force this as an expected response, if you use it in a method that should always return a value, then it should represent an error state internally.
Use null for an intentional or non-match response.
As for how/when to check...
undefined, null, 0, an empty string, NaN and false will be FALSE via coercion. These are known as "falsy" values... everything else is true.
Your best bet is coercion then testing for valid exception values...
var something; //undefined
something = !!something; //something coerced into a boolean
//true if false, null, NaN or undefined
function isFalsish(value) {
return (!value && value !== "" && value !== 0);
}
//get number or default
function getNumber(val, defaultVal) {
defaultVal = isFalsish(defaultVal) ? 0 : defaultVal;
return (isFalsish(val) || isNaN(val)) ? defaultVal : +val;
}
Numeric testing is the real bugger, since true, false and null can be coerced into a number, and 0 coerces to false.
I would treat them as 2 completely different values, and check for the one you know might occur.
If you're checking to see if something has been given a value yet, check against undefined.
If you're checking to see if the value is 'nothing,' check against 'null'
A slightly contrived example:
Say you have a series of ajax requests, and you're morally opposed to using callbacks so you have a timeout running that checks for their completion.
Your check would look something like this:
if (result !== undefined){
//The ajax requests have completed
doOnCompleteStuff();
if (result !== null){
//There is actually data to process
doSomething(result);
}
}
tldr; They are two different values, undefined means no value has been given, null means a value has been given, but the value is 'nothing'.