-1
Coming from a C/C++ background that has `const` I typically do not use final
because it does not give me a truly final (const) object and users can still do:
final object = new SomeMutableObject()
object.mutateMe();
That just rubs me the wrong way. So as Pau says below, I typically skip the
final keyword, but code as if object(s) are final/const as needed.
Keith
> On Jul 22, 2018, at 1:53 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> I am probably -1 right now on a new keyword when I think the existing one
> works just fine.
>
> One reason some Groovy folks might not use final more frequently is because
> it has
> historically (up until 2.4.x) been ignored by Groovy for local variables. Java
> also ignores final at runtime for local variables but that doesn't matter for
> a statically
> compiled language. Have a look at the bytecode using javap -v from this Java
> program:
>
> public class Hello {
> public void method1() {
> final Object o1 = new Object();
> }
> public void method2() {
> Object o2 = new Object();
> }
> }
>
> You will notice that the bytecode for method1 and method2 is identical.
> Groovy 2.5 does a better job of detecting final for local variables. It does
> it
> in a similar sort of way to Java - at compile time. I'd be inclined to wait
> and
> see how this added support (plus @AutoFinal <>) affects usage.
>
> The other discussions I have seen around not using final are around style.
> The 'final' modifier is particularly good at stopping the practice of
> mutating some
> variable mid-way through a long method in a confusing way. Agile practices
> discourage long methods, functional style discourages mutating variables
> and codenarc can be used to some extent to catch bad behavior. So some
> advocate omitting the final keyword but coding as if it was there to obtain
> more succinct, easier to read code. Now that we have @AutoFinal, I am
> not sure that we need to aggressively further promote its usage but rather
> watch how usage changes in the short term.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM MG <mg...@arscreat.com
> <mailto:mg...@arscreat.com>> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have been wondering for a while whether Groovy developers use "def"
> even if a variable is actually is "final" not only because every Groovy
> example code uses "def", but also because "final" as a word is longer
> than "def".
> Therefore I propose to introduce the shortcut "fin" for "final" in Groovy.
>
> e.g. to support
>
> class Goo {
> fin String name
> fin Goo gooParent
> Goo(fin String name, fin Goo gooParent) { ... }
> String gooGoal(fin x) {
> fin y = 2*x
> fin int z = x + y
> }
> }
>
> Cheers,
> mg
>
>
>
