Which one is better null == object or object == null

Question

I am just surffing on a google and i found one new thing which is new concept to me, but that concept is not cleared
Concept is, i found one place a class object is compaired with the null in following way
if( null == object)
Usually i used
if(object == null)
Problem :- What is the diffrance between these two condition and which one is better?

Answer 1

yawmark wrote:
corlettk wrote:
So... Just use the first way (by default) because that's how people are it reading accustomed to.Agreed. Just to point out, the reason commonly given for preferring (null == object) is that it prevents semantic errors such as (object = null), which is only a problem in Java in a minuscule number of cases.And the practice started in C (or maybe even an earlier language) where it's an issue in many cases. For example,
int i = 0;
if (i = 1) { ... }The "if" line is illegal in Java, but it's legal in C. If the programmer forgets the second = sign, then you get the above. Variable i gets a value of 1, and the expression i = 1 has a value of 1, which corresponds to true (whereas in Java, you can't use an int where a boolean is expected). So the if comes out true, when it should have been false (had we properly used if (i == 1)), and in addition, the value of i has changed when we didn't want it to.
In Java, this would be a compile-time error, whereas in C, it's a runtime error. Compile-time errors are easier to fix, and they don't get the opportunity to cause a problem after the software has been released.
In C, to turn this back into a compile time error, you could get in the habit of writing if (1 == i) Then if you forget the second = sign, you get if (1 = i) which is a compile-time error.
Because Java doesn't equate numerical zero with false and non-zero with true, this issue is, as yawmark demonstrates, much less of a problem in Java.