`Option` vs non-`Option`

foo.md

Option vs non-Option

	Option<T>	non-Option (T | undefined)
accessing property	userOption.map(user => user.age)	userNullish?.age
calling a method	userOption.map(user => user.fn())	userNullish?.fn()
providing fallback	ageOption.getOrElse(0)	ageNullish ?? 0
filter	ageOption.filter(checkIsOddNumber)	ageNullish !== undefined && checkIsOddNumber(ageNullish) ? ageNullish : undefined
map	ageOption.map(add1)	ageNullish !== undefined ? add1(ageNullish) : undefined
flat map / chain	ageOption.flatMap(add1)	ageNullish !== undefined ? add1(ageNullish) : undefined
check for existence with predicate	ageOption.exists(checkIsOddNumber)	ageNullish !== undefined ? checkIsOddNumber(ageNullish) : false
check for existence with method	nameOption.exists(name => name.startsWith('bob'))	nameNullish?.startsWith('bob') ?? false
nesting	Option<Option<T>>	impossible
sequencing	sequence(fa, fb)	fa !== undefined ? fb !== undefined ? [fa, fb] : undefined : undefined
mapping multiple	sequence(fa, fb).map(add)	fa !== undefined ? fb !== undefined ? add([fa, fb]) : undefined : undefined

Comparison of advanced example

const age1 = userOption
  .flatMap(user => user.age)
  .map(plus1)
  .filter(checkIsOddNumber)
  .getOrElse(0);

const age2 =
  (user?.age !== undefined
    ? (() => {
        const agePlus1 = plus1(user.age);
        return checkIsOddNumber(agePlus1) ? agePlus1 : undefined;
      })()
    : undefined) ?? 0;

7:0 for option 👍

In your advanced examples, the resulting const would be an age and not an ageOption, would'nt it ? Because if the getOrElse().

@legzo Fixed, thanks!

I'm not sure if anybody would write the non-option version.

const age3 = user?.age + 1 || 0;

const age3 = plus1(user?.age) || 0;

This is probably more difficult to understand than the Option example, because it requires to remember than NaN is falsy, but I have a feeling that a bunch of people used to JS would prefer it. I just wanted to point that non-Option example looks artificial IMHO.

Your example is not logically equivalent—age should be treated as nullable, and we only want to call plus1 when it's non-nullable.

I wrote this gist on the assumption that you would never want to use boolean coercion (because of all the bugs it can lead to).

Updated my example to use checkIsOddNumber instead of checkIsPositive, to demonstrate that this logical operation can't be replaced by boolean coercion.

Yeah sorry, I actually skipped the filter 😓 Negative values are truthy. There would need to be additional ternary and second call to plus1 or a partial result variable. My snippet was closer to this one, assuming you can pass undefined to plus1.

const age1 = userOption
    .flatMap(user => user.age)
    .map(plus1)
    .getOrElse(0);

This one should make more sense. Default parameters and destructuring are probably idiomatic JS.

interface User { age: number }

const plus1 = (x: number) => x + 1;
const checkIsOddNumber = (x: number) => x % 2 === 1;

const getAge = ({ age }: Partial<User> = {}) => {
    if (age === undefined) {
        return 0;
    }
    const agePlus1 = plus1(age);
    return checkIsOddNumber(agePlus1) ? agePlus1 : 0;
}

console.log(
    getAge(undefined), // 0
    getAge({}), // 0
    getAge({ age: 30 }), // 31
    getAge({ age: 31 }), // 0
)

One could argue that this doesn't require familiarity with any library.

I do believe that Option is very useful, especially because of how easy it is to move between Option and Either.
I just wanted to say that I find the second example (with IIFE) a bit artificial.

Can you update your example so that user.age is nullable, like in my example? That will help us compare all of the different approaches.

Do you mean nullable as T | null or T | undefined?
Is it nullable in your example? Table head contains T | undefined, and we are (in both examples) using triple equal to undefined.

Do you mean that I should just drop Partial and change user to { age?: number }?

I misread your example, it is already nullable (or "optional"). My bad!

Btw I wrote it using the IIFE so I didn't have to repeat the default value (0), as shown in your example. We could avoid that with a constant, but it would be annoying if we had to extract a constant for default values everywhere they were used.

A nice resource for building an intuition about why option types are useful is the Railway Oriented Programming talk.

I'm wondering if you can comment no the static-land modules implemented for type Nilable<T> = T | undefined | null from nilable and option in hkts (an fp-ts port to deno).

	Option	Nilable
accessing property	userOption.map(user => user.age)	pipe(userNilable, N.map(user => user.age))
calling a method	userOption.map(user => user.fn())	pipe(userNilable, N.map(user => user.fn()))
providing fallback	ageOption.getOrElse(0)	pipe(userNilable, N.getOrElse(0))
filter	ageOption.filter(checkIsOddNumber)	N.Filterable.filter(checkIsOddNumber, userNilable)
map	ageOption.map(add1)	pipe(ageNilable, N.map(add1))
flat map / chain	ageOption.flatMap(add1)	pipe(ageNilable, N.chain(add1))
check for existence with predicate	ageOption.exists(checkIsOddNumber)	pipe(ageNilable, N.exists(checkIsOddNumber)) *unimplemented
check for existence with method	nameOption.exists(name => name.startsWith('bob'))	pipe(nameNilable, N.exists(name => name.startsWith('bob')) *unimplemented
nesting	Option<Option>	still impossible
sequencing	sequence(fa, fb)	N.sequenceTuple(ageNilable, nameNilable)
mapping multiple	sequence(fa, fb).map(add)	N.sequenceTuple(ageNilable1, ageNilable2).map(add)

Specifically, aside from being able to represent the different between [] and [undefined] when calling const head = <T>(ts: T[]): Nilable<T> => ts[0]; what are the type theoretical problems? (Even in this case the return value from head([]) and head([undefined]) are correct).

@baetheus I've also explored an approach like nilables before but ultimately the problem is that it does not satisfy FP laws.

@hasparus attempted something similar here https://github.com/hasparus/maybe-ts, and wrote about his learnings here: https://haspar.us/speaking/maybe-ts.

@OliverJAsh Which laws does it not satisfy? I've created some assert statements that test instances of Functor, Apply, Applicative, and Monad and have tested my monad with them. It seems to pass for the simple valued case I setup. I've even run through a proof outline myself:

// Identity: F.map(x => x, a) ≡ a
map(identity, 1)
= isNil(1) ? undefined : identity(1)
= identity(1)
= 1

map(identity, undefined)
= isNil(undefined) ? undefined : identity(undefined)
= undefined

Ok!

// Composition: F.map(x => f(g(x)), a) ≡ F.map(f, F.map(g, a))
map(x => String(parseInt(x)), "1")
= isNil("1") ? undefined : String(parseInt("1"))
= String(parseInt("1"))
= String(1)
= 1

map(String, map(parseInt, "1"))
= isNil(isNil("1") ? undefined : parseInt("1")) ? undefined : String(parseInt("1")) *not actual reduction
= isNil(parseInt("1")) ? undefined : String(parseInt("1"))
= String(parseInt("1"))
= String(1)
= 1

Ok!

map(x => String(parseInt(x)), undefined)
= isNil(undefined) ? undefined : String(parseInt(undefined))
= undefined

map(String, map(parseInt, "1"))
= isNil(isNil(undefined) ? undefined : parseInt(undefined)) ? undefined : String(parseInt(undefined)) *not actual reduction
= isNil(undefined) ? undefined : String(parseInt(undefined))
= undefined

Ok!

Albeit only for functor.

I see, for the case where you are mapping with a function f where f<T>(ta: Nilable<T>): Nilable<T> you lose information during composition. Effectively this is the case where undefined is meaningful as a value.