Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
In Java, it’s taught that variables should be kept private to enable better encapsulation, but what about static constants? This:
public static final int FOO = 5;
Would be equivalent in result to this:
private static final int FOO = 5;
...
public static getFoo() { return FOO; }
But which is better practice?
There’s one reason to not use a constant directly in your code.
Assume FOO may change later on (but still stay constant), say to
public static final int FOO = 10;. Shouldn’t break anything as long as nobody’s stupid enough to hardcode the value directly right?No. The Java compiler will inline constants such as Foo above into the calling code, i.e.
someFunc(FooClass.FOO);becomessomeFunc(5);. Now if you recompile your library but not the calling code you can end up in surprising situations. That’s avoided if you use a function – the JIT will still optimize it just fine, so no real performance hit there.