A modern programming language that makes developers happier.

kotlinlang

in java i can do:
```if(x!=null &amp;&amp; x.name.equals("name"))
{}```
first evaluate if x is not null then second condition, second condition is not checked if x is null and then is false since &amp;&amp; operator only true when all its true, must stop evaluating second condition, is this by desing? how  could I do this in kotlin?

That should be copy-paste compatible with kotlin.

you can do exactly this ( safely, thanks to smart-casting), but you might also consider the more idiomatic `if (x?.name == "name")`

or `if (x != null &amp;&amp; x.name == "name")` if you want the short-circuit semantics to be obvious

you might also consider `takeIf` - `x?.takeIf { it.name == "name" }?.let { ... }`

These idioms start to concern me after awhile -- they 'seem' overtly ineffecient, proably are not but just seems like

x?.takeIf { it.name == "name" } ?.let { ... }

with 2 lambdas, 5+ expression etc just cant be as clean as

if( x!= null &amp;&amp; x.name == "name" ) ..

likewise

expr?.let {  it.dosometing }   vs   if( expr != null ) expr.doSometing()

I know what the purpose is (wrt nullability guarentees   and multiple evaluation points for expresions) but it just 'seems wrong'

yeah, at a glance I’d definitely call that over-kotlinized lol

there’s really nothing wrong with a simple `if` null-check every now and again

Particularly unhappy with how *paiinfully difficult* it was  to finally deduce (aka after atleast 10 hints/corrections/advise from someone who 'knew' and was so 'obvious' to that my density seemed unimangable)  --
This tiny example from my 'bare minimal scripting' example:
<https://github.com/DALDEI/kotlin-script-sample>

  `val compilation: ScriptCompilationConfiguration.Builder.() -&gt; Unit = {`
`        jvm {`
`            // limit or extend classpath`
`            // "mylib.jar","another.jar", wholeClasspath = imTooLazy`
`            dependenciesFromCurrentContext( wholeClasspath = true)`
`        }`
`    }`

There is NO WAY I could have ever deduced that expression/incantation from either docs, samples or soruce (of which I had all 3 *AND* personal assistance AND a year on off looking at it

THe irony being I know the intent is a clean and simple / obvious DSL -- and I suspect someday it might actually be one -- but -- in the current state its -- well I cant think of a word more torturous then torture :slightly_smiling_face:

yeah, I agree with you that chaining `takeIf` and `let` in this case is not preferable to a simple if check... just sayin it's an option :man-shrugging: