On 2015-08-28 08:36, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what does the team think about using "final" for variables and parameters. In Oak, so far we didn't
use it a lot. This question has come up with OAK-3148. The patch uses "final" for variables, but not for
parameters. Lately, I have seens some code (I forgot where) that uses "final" for parameters in an
_interface_. Please note this is not about using "final" for fields, where I think everybody agrees it should
be used. It's just about variables and parameters.
I think we have 3 options:
(a) use "final" for variables and parameters everywhere possible
(b) let the individual developer decide
(c) don't use it except if needed
Some links:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/154314/when-should-one-use-final-for-method-parameters-and-local-variables
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/137868/using-final-modifier-whenever-applicable-in-java
Personally, my favorite is (c), followed by (b). As for (a), I think (same as Alex Miller at StackOverflow) it clutters
the code and decreases readability. Too bad "final" is not the default in Java, but Java will not change, and
we are stuck with Java. I think using "final" will not improve the code, because people don't
"accidentally" change variables and parameters, so it will not help the writer of a method, it will not help
the compiler or performance (the JVM can easily see if a variable or parameter is effectively assigned only once). To
improve the code, I'm all for using Checkstyle, unit tests, code coverage, mutation testing, enforcing to write
Javadocs for interfaces, and so on. But using "final" wherever possible, I think it would be a step backwards.
Regards,
Thomas
+1. (c)!
