这是一个“圣战”式的问题。换句话说，两种选择都是好的，但人们会有自己的偏好，他们会誓死捍卫这些偏好。

以上两个例外的链接定义如下 IllegalArgumentException:抛出该异常，表示方法被传递了一个非法或不适当的参数。 NullPointerException:当应用程序试图在需要对象的情况下使用null时抛出。

这里最大的区别是IllegalArgumentException应该在检查方法的参数是否有效时使用。当一个对象被“使用”为空时，就应该使用NullPointerException。

我希望这能帮助你正确看待这两者。

Apache Commons Lang有一个NullArgumentException，它完成了这里讨论的许多事情:它扩展了IllegalArgumentException，并且它唯一的构造函数采用了参数的名称，而参数的名称本应该是非空的。

虽然我觉得抛出NullArgumentException或IllegalArgumentException之类的异常更准确地描述了异常情况，但我和同事们还是选择遵从Bloch在这个问题上的建议。

理想情况下，不应该抛出运行时异常。应该为您的场景创建一个受控异常(业务异常)。因为如果这些异常中的任何一个被抛出并记录下来，它就会误导开发人员在查看日志时。相反，业务异常不会造成这种恐慌，并且在故障排除日志时通常会被忽略。

实际上，在我看来，抛出IllegalArgumentException或NullPointerException的问题只是对Java中不完全理解异常处理的少数人的“圣战”。一般来说，规则很简单，如下:

argument constraint violations must be indicated as fast as possible (-> fast fail), in order to avoid illegal states which are much harder to debug in case of an invalid null pointer for whatever reason, throw NullPointerException in case of an illegal array/collection index, throw ArrayIndexOutOfBounds in case of a negative array/collection size, throw NegativeArraySizeException in case of an illegal argument that is not covered by the above, and for which you don't have another more specific exception type, throw IllegalArgumentException as a wastebasket on the other hand, in case of a constraint violation WITHIN A FIELD that could not be avoided by fast fail for some valid reason, catch and rethrow as IllegalStateException or a more specific checked exception. Never let pass the original NullPointerException, ArrayIndexOutOfBounds, etc in this case!

至少有三个非常好的理由反对将所有类型的参数约束违反映射到IllegalArgumentException，第三个理由可能非常严重，以至于标志着这种做法的糟糕风格:

(1) A programmer cannot a safely assume that all cases of argument constraint violations result in IllegalArgumentException, because the large majority of standard classes use this exception rather as a wastebasket if there is no more specific kind of exception available. Trying to map all cases of argument constraint violations to IllegalArgumentException in your API only leads to programmer frustration using your classes, as the standard libraries mostly follow different rules that violate yours, and most of your API users will use them as well!

(2) Mapping the exceptions actually results in a different kind of anomaly, caused by single inheritance: All Java exceptions are classes, and therefore support single inheritance only. Therefore, there is no way to create an exception that is truly say both a NullPointerException and an IllegalArgumentException, as subclasses can only inherit from one or the other. Throwing an IllegalArgumentException in case of a null argument therefore makes it harder for API users to distinguish between problems whenever a program tries to programmatically correct the problem, for example by feeding default values into a call repeat!

(3) Mapping actually creates the danger of bug masking: In order to map argument constraint violations into IllegalArgumentException, you'll need to code an outer try-catch within every method that has any constrained arguments. However, simply catching RuntimeException in this catch block is out of the question, because that risks mapping documented RuntimeExceptions thrown by libery methods used within yours into IllegalArgumentException, even if they are no caused by argument constraint violations. So you need to be very specific, but even that effort doesn't protect you from the case that you accidentally map an undocumented runtime exception of another API (i.e. a bug) into an IllegalArgumentException of your API. Even the most careful mapping therefore risks masking programming errors of other library makers as argument constraint violations of your method's users, which is simply hillareous behavior!

With the standard practice on the other hand, the rules stay simple, and exception causes stay unmasked and specific. For the method caller, the rules are easy as well: - if you encounter a documented runtime exception of any kind because you passed an illegal value, either repeat the call with a default (for this specific exceptions are neccessary), or correct your code - if on the other hand you enccounter a runtime exception that is not documented to happen for a given set of arguments, file a bug report to the method's makers to ensure that either their code or their documentation is fixed.

一些集合假设使用NullPointerException而不是IllegalArgumentException拒绝null。例如，如果你比较一个包含null的集合和一个拒绝null的集合，第一个集合将调用另一个集合的containsAll，并捕获它的NullPointerException——而不是IllegalArgumentException。(我正在查看AbstractSet.equals的实现。)

You could reasonably argue that using unchecked exceptions in this way is an antipattern, that comparing collections that contain null to collections that can't contain null is a likely bug that really should produce an exception, or that putting null in a collection at all is a bad idea. Nevertheless, unless you're willing to say that equals should throw an exception in such a case, you're stuck remembering that NullPointerException is required in certain circumstances but not in others. ("IAE before NPE except after 'c'...")

类似地，构建工具可以自动插入空检查。值得注意的是，Kotlin的编译器在向Java API传递可能为空的值时执行此操作。当检查失败时，结果是NullPointerException。因此，为了给所有的Kotlin用户和Java用户提供一致的行为，您需要使用NullPointerException。