Why should I use the keyword “final” on a method p

Question

I can't understand where the final keyword is really handy when it is used on method parameters.

If we exclude the usage of anonymous classes, readability and intent declaration then it seems almost worthless to me.

Enforcing that some data remains constant is not as strong as it seems.

• If the parameter is a primitive then it will have no effect since the parameter is passed to the method as a value and changing it will have no effect outside the scope.

• If we are passing a parameter by reference, then the reference itself is a local variable and if the reference is changed from within the method, that would not have any effect from outside of the method scope.

Consider the simple test example below. This test passes although the method changed the value of the reference given to it, it has no effect.

public void testNullify() {
    Collection<Integer> c  = new ArrayList<Integer>();      
    nullify(c);
    assertNotNull(c);       
    final Collection<Integer> c1 = c;
    assertTrue(c1.equals(c));
    change(c);
    assertTrue(c1.equals(c));
}

private void change(Collection<Integer> c) {
    c = new ArrayList<Integer>();
}

public void nullify(Collection<?> t) {
    t = null;
}

Answer 1

I use final all the time on parameters.

Does it add that much? Not really.

Would I turn it off? No.

The reason: I found 3 bugs where people had written sloppy code and failed to set a member variable in accessors. All bugs proved difficult to find.

I'd like to see this made the default in a future version of Java. The pass by value/reference thing trips up an awful lot of junior programmers.

One more thing.. my methods tend to have a low number of parameters so the extra text on a method declaration isn't an issue.

Answer 2

Personally I don't use final on method parameters, because it adds too much clutter to parameter lists. I prefer to enforce that method parameters are not changed through something like Checkstyle.

For local variables I use final whenever possible, I even let Eclipse do that automatically in my setup for personal projects.

I would certainly like something stronger like C/C++ const.

Answer 3

Short answer: final helps a tiny bit but... use defensive programming on the client side instead.

Indeed, the problem with final is that it only enforces the reference is unchanged, gleefully allowing the referenced object members to be mutated, unbeknownst to the caller. Hence the best practice in this regard is defensive programming on the caller side, creating deeply immutable instances or deep copies of objects that are in danger of being mugged by unscrupulous APIs.

Answer 4

I never use final in a parameter list, it just adds clutter like previous respondents have said. Also in Eclipse you can set parameter assignment to generate an error so using final in a parameter list seems pretty redundant to me. Interestingly when I enabled the Eclipse setting for parameter assignment generating an error on it caught this code (this is just how I remember the flow, not the actual code. ) :-

private String getString(String A, int i, String B, String C)
{
    if (i > 0)
        A += B;

    if (i > 100)
        A += C;

    return A;
}

Playing devil's advocate, what exactly is wrong with doing this?

Answer 5

Yes, excluding anonymous classes, readability and intent declaration it's almost worthless. Are those three things worthless though?

Personally I tend not to use final for local variables and parameters unless I'm using the variable in an anonymous inner class, but I can certainly see the point of those who want to make it clear that the parameter value itself won't change (even if the object it refers to changes its contents). For those who find that adds to readability, I think it's an entirely reasonable thing to do.

Your point would be more important if anyone were actually claiming that it did keep data constant in a way that it doesn't - but I can't remember seeing any such claims. Are you suggesting there's a significant body of developers suggesting that final has more effect than it really does?

EDIT: I should really have summed all of this up with a Monty Python reference; the question seems somewhat similar to asking "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Answer 6

Let me explain a bit about the one case where you have to use final, which Jon already mentioned:

If you create an anonymous inner class in your method and use a local variable (such as a method parameter) inside that class, then the compiler forces you to make the parameter final:

public Iterator<Integer> createIntegerIterator(final int from, final int to)
{
    return new Iterator<Integer>(){
        int index = from;
        public Integer next()
        {
            return index++;
        }
        public boolean hasNext()
        {
            return index <= to;
        }
        // remove method omitted
    };
}

Here the from and to parameters need to be final so they can be used inside the anonymous class.

The reason for that requirement is this: Local variables live on the stack, therefore they exist only while the method is executed. However, the anonymous class instance is returned from the method, so it may live for much longer. You can't preserve the stack, because it is needed for subsequent method calls.

So what Java does instead is to put copies of those local variables as hidden instance variables into the anonymous class (you can see them if you examine the byte code). But if they were not final, one might expect the anonymous class and the method seeing changes the other one makes to the variable. In order to maintain the illusion that there is only one variable rather than two copies, it has to be final.