A good point and the java ecosystem makes similar mistakes. In general any:

``` if (x != null && !x.isEmpty()) doAThing(x); ```

is either:

[A] Code directly on the boundary between systems; the other system is explicitly documented to treat null and empty as semantically equivalent, which is bad, but given that the mistake lies in a system beyond the control of this programmer, they're working around it. It can exist in this boundary code and nowhere else, or

[B] Extremely rare, but there is a real semantic difference between the notion 'x is null' and 'x is empty' but this code wants to do the same thing in both semantically separate cases, or

[C] it's bad code.

NPEs are better than endless defensive dealings. If code checks for null I'd expect that null has a semantically identifiable meaning, and one that isn't also covered by something else (such as some notion of 'empty', e.g. an empty string or an empty list).