Coincidentally, here's a read about Doom 3's source code that mentions C++'s const: http://kotaku.com/5975610/the-exceptional-beauty-of-doom-3s-source-code?post=56177550
See also John Carmac's comments at the end. Gary On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Tushar Kapila <tgkp...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 final and thank you for interesting reads. This thread and others. > > On 1/11/13, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 19:55, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > > > It all depends on what "..." contains doesn't it? If it's a simple > > one-liner-single-method-call-with-no-args, the "final" may seem overkill, > > but it is more complex it is not IMO. This is all about communicating > > intent. I prefer to use final consistently than making a judgement call > on > > whether this or that declaration benefits. Either the value is constant > or > > it is not. > > > > > > Yes, it is true that what "..." contains matters. I would argue that in > the > > specific case of LogManager that within the static block the declarations > > of managerProps, factoryClass and cl are worthy of being declared final. > > All the rest are unnecessary. However, it is just a matter of opinion > and > > not something worth fighting about (but definitely worth discussing just > > because it is interesting). > > > > > > Yes, interesting chat! :) > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > >> > >> While I have no great objection to this I find it to be of minimal > value. > >> In general, methods and blocks should be fairly short so the "clarity" > >> declaring these variable final provides isn't of much value to me. > >> > > > > Great point, "clarity" yes, but clarity *of intent* is my goal, which is > > different than clarity of coding in the fewest amount of characters a la > C. > > I'm no great believer of "self-documenting" code, but using final helps > say > > "this name is not a variable, it is a constant". > > > > > > Interesting argument. But I would argue that none of the local variables > > marked as final (even the variables I noted above) are actually > > "constants". Rather, they are variables whose values do not happen to > > change within the block of code they occur in. From that point of view, > > I'm not really sure I care. If I need to come along tomorrow and cause > the > > value to change for whatever reason I'm going to do it. Since that would > > happen within the scope of a few lines of code having the final keyword > > doesn't help me much. > > > > Ralph > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Regards > Tushar Kapila > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
