Comments on: Javascript’s null Value Has an Identity Crisis

by: marijn

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:28:46 +0000

As I understand it, this is basically a bug in the original Netscape JavaScript implementation that later was promoted to feature — Microsoft had copied the behaviour in their implementation and was hestitant to break existing code.

(Things like this really suck about JS — and as I understand it ECMAScript 4 isn’t going to fix this.)

by: gingercamel

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:08:23 +0000

I totally agree with UP that since null is considered not to be an instance of Object, then logically null should not have a type of ‘object’. In fact in Professional JavaScript for Web Developers - 2005 - (By Nicholas Zachas) it is written at page 17 (I know.. it sounds almost religious…):

“You may wonder why the typeof operator returns “object” for a value that is null.
This was actually an error in the original JavaScript implementation that was then
copied in ECMAScript. Today, it is rationalized that null is considered a placeholder
for an object, even though, technically, it is a primitive value.”
So I guess UP is right, it is actually an error.

by: UselessPickles

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:17:24 +0000

I agree that the browsers are acting according to standards in this situation. The problem is that the behavior creates a conflict that is a pain in the butt when programming. I agree with the behavior of the instanceof operator; null is not an instance of Object and it should not be. It is the typeof operator that I am complaining about. Since null is not an instance of Object, it makes no sense that typeof null == “object”. It would make more sense if typeof null == “null”. I can’t think of any reason that the behavior of the typeof operator as defined by the standards would be desireable. I know that in other languages (specifically, Java), a null value can have a type (e.g. String myString = null;), but since Javascript is so loosly typed, null is just null (although internally to the implementation of the language it is a value of type Null, that info is not available to the end-user of the language).

btw - I think you may have left something out of your example that shows why “null instanceof Object == true” would be bad, because the example never tests if “o instanceof Object”.

by: mdimitrov

Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:50:25 +0000

The browsers act exactly as it is described in the ECMA 262 standard (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm). 1. Section 4.3.1 defines what a type is: A type is a set of data values. 2. Section 4.3.3 defines the Object type: An object is a member of the type Object. It is an unordered collection of properties each of which contains a primitive value, object, or function. A function stored in a property of an object is called a method. 3. Section 4.3.12 defines the Null type: The type Null has exactly one value, called null. Based on the above and the assumption that a value can belong only to one type we can conclude that null instanceof Object must be false because null is not part of the Object type (or set). If there was a native type (or object) like Null then null instanceof Null will be true. There are more "evidences" in the standard, however: 1. Section 11.4.3 defines the typeof operator. It explicitly defines that typeof null is "object". 2. Section 11.8.6 defines the

instanceof operator. Basicaly it says that the result is what is returned by the [[HasInstance]] internal method of the right-hand operand.
3. The only standard object that implements the [[HasInstance]] method is the Function object. Section 15.3.5.3 defines this method. It explicitly says that if the value of the left-hand operand of the instanceof operator (which was passed as an argument to this method) is null then the result is false.

I do see reasoning in the fact that null is not instance of any object. The same is in other languages (like for example Java) where null instanceof Object is also false.

Let's say that you have a function that works on Number or String objects. For example:

function reverseSymbols(o)
{
    if (o instanceof Number) {
        // convert the number to string and reverse it
    } else if (o instanceof String) {
        // reverse the string
    }
}

I think it is obvious that in this case it is a good thing that null instanceof Object will return false.