Is Java 8 missing an OptionalBoolean?
As a primitive version of Optional*, Java 1.8 provides OptionalInt, OptionalLong and OptionalDouble.
But I cannot find the equivalent OptionalBoolean class.
Are there any technical reasons against having an OptionalBoolean?
*
An Optional may or may not have the presence of a value, is used as an alternative to null.
Answer
This quote explains the considerations behind having primitive streams. I'm assuming the same applied to primitive Optionals. In short, primitive streams (and probably Optionals as well) were created for performance reasons. They didn't create them for all 8 primitive types to reduce code duplication and interface pollution.
Quoting the words of Brian Goetz in the lambda mailing list:
More generally: the philosophy behind having specialized primitive streams (e.g., IntStream) is fraught with nasty tradeoffs. On the one hand, it's lots of ugly code duplication, interface pollution, etc. On the other hand, any kind of arithmetic on boxed ops sucks, and having no story for reducing over ints would be terrible. So we're in a tough corner, and we're trying to not make it worse.
Trick #1 for not making it worse is: we're not doing all eight primitive types. We're doing int, long, and double; all the others could be simulated by these. Arguably we could get rid of int too, but we don't think most Java developers are ready for that. Yes, there will be calls for Character, and the answer is "stick it in an int." (Each specialization is projected to ~100K to the JRE footprint.)
Trick #2 is: we're using primitive streams to expose things that are best done in the primitive domain (sorting, reduction) but not trying to duplicate everything you can do in the boxed domain. For example, there's no IntStream.into(), as Aleksey points out. (If there were, the next question(s) would be "Where is IntCollection? IntArrayList? IntConcurrentSkipListMap?) The intention is many streams may start as reference streams and end up as primitive streams, but not vice versa. That's OK, and that reduces the number of conversions needed (e.g., no overload of map for int -> T, no specialization of Function for int -> T, etc.)
And I should mention that I found that quote in the answer to this question.