When copying an entire array, I've often seen people write:
int[] dest = new int[orig.length];
System.arraycopy(orig, 0, dest, 0, orig.length);
But it seems to me there is no reason to favor this over:
int[] dest = orig.clone();
They're both shallow copies anyway. Probably these folks just don't realize that clone
exists. So is there any reason not to use clone
?
No. If you're really microbenchmarking, then maybe, depending on what JVM you're running. But in actuality, no.
I happened to look at this question when I was pondering on the same doubt. I feel that the arraycopy()
is a method to be used when the array is predefined (i.e. memory is already allocated). Thus, the overhead associated with memory allocation is not repeated.
For example, imagine a case when you have defined a large array which is updated periodically. Then using clone()
will recreate a array of required size every time the array is copied. However, arraycopy()
uses the pre-allocated memory space.
Thus arraycopy()
is more efficient in certain scenarios compared to clone()
. On the other hand clone()
results in a compact code.
Just guessing here, but there might be a good reason to use System.arraycopy
because different JVM's could conceivably implement them in a way that takes advantage of native abilities of the underlying system for a performance boost.
For example, a JVM implementation could use a native library call like memcpy
which could potentially take advantage of some memory controller tricks to perform the action in some incredibly fast and clever way. However, the Object.clone
implementation might not be a good candidate for such optimization due to its virtual nature.