你应该使用IllegalArgumentException (IAE)，而不是NullPointerException (NPE)，原因如下:

首先，NPE JavaDoc显式地列出了适用于NPE的情况。请注意，当不恰当地使用null时，所有这些都是由运行时抛出的。相比之下，IAE JavaDoc再清楚不过了:“抛出是为了表明一个方法被传递了一个非法或不适当的参数。”没错，就是你!

其次，当您在堆栈跟踪中看到NPE时，您会假设什么?可能有人解引用了一个null。当您看到IAE时，您假定堆栈顶部的方法调用方传递了一个非法值。同样，后一种假设是正确的，前一种假设具有误导性。

第三，由于IAE显然是为验证参数而设计的，因此必须假设它是默认的异常选择，那么为什么要选择NPE呢?当然不是针对不同的行为——你真的期望调用代码分别捕获NPE和IAE，并因此做一些不同的事情吗?您是否试图传达更具体的错误消息?但是无论如何，您都可以在异常消息文本中这样做，就像处理所有其他不正确的参数一样。

第四，其他所有不正确的参数数据都会被IAE，为什么不一致呢?为什么非法null是如此特殊，以至于它应该从所有其他类型的非法参数中获得一个单独的异常?

最后，我接受其他答案给出的论点，即Java API的某些部分以这种方式使用NPE。然而，从异常类型到命名约定，Java API与所有内容都不一致，因此我认为仅仅盲目地复制(您最喜欢的部分)Java API并不是一个足以胜过这些其他考虑因素的好理由。

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。

如果你不希望null是一个允许的值，似乎会调用IllegalArgumentException，如果你试图使用一个结果为null的变量，则会抛出NullPointerException。

你应该使用IllegalArgumentException (IAE)，而不是NullPointerException (NPE)，原因如下:

首先，NPE JavaDoc显式地列出了适用于NPE的情况。请注意，当不恰当地使用null时，所有这些都是由运行时抛出的。相比之下，IAE JavaDoc再清楚不过了:“抛出是为了表明一个方法被传递了一个非法或不适当的参数。”没错，就是你!

其次，当您在堆栈跟踪中看到NPE时，您会假设什么?可能有人解引用了一个null。当您看到IAE时，您假定堆栈顶部的方法调用方传递了一个非法值。同样，后一种假设是正确的，前一种假设具有误导性。

第三，由于IAE显然是为验证参数而设计的，因此必须假设它是默认的异常选择，那么为什么要选择NPE呢?当然不是针对不同的行为——你真的期望调用代码分别捕获NPE和IAE，并因此做一些不同的事情吗?您是否试图传达更具体的错误消息?但是无论如何，您都可以在异常消息文本中这样做，就像处理所有其他不正确的参数一样。

第四，其他所有不正确的参数数据都会被IAE，为什么不一致呢?为什么非法null是如此特殊，以至于它应该从所有其他类型的非法参数中获得一个单独的异常?

最后，我接受其他答案给出的论点，即Java API的某些部分以这种方式使用NPE。然而，从异常类型到命名约定，Java API与所有内容都不一致，因此我认为仅仅盲目地复制(您最喜欢的部分)Java API并不是一个足以胜过这些其他考虑因素的好理由。

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.

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。