We Keep Coding

why should we use final to mark the constructor parameter in enum? [duplicate]

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;
}

Stop a Variable’s Reassignment
While these answers are intellectually interesting, I've not read the short simple answer:
Use the keyword final when you want the compiler to prevent a
variable from being re-assigned to a different object.
Whether the variable is a static variable, member variable, local variable, or argument/parameter variable, the effect is entirely the same.
Example
Let’s see the effect in action.
Consider this simple method, where the two variables (arg and x) can both be re-assigned different objects.
// Example use of this method:
// this.doSomething( "tiger" );
void doSomething( String arg ) {
String x = arg; // Both variables now point to the same String object.
x = "elephant"; // This variable now points to a different String object.
arg = "giraffe"; // Ditto. Now neither variable points to the original passed String.
}
Mark the local variable as final. This results in a compiler error.
void doSomething( String arg ) {
final String x = arg; // Mark variable as 'final'.
x = "elephant"; // Compiler error: The final local variable x cannot be assigned.
arg = "giraffe";
}
Instead, let’s mark the parameter variable as final. This too results in a compiler error.
void doSomething( final String arg ) { // Mark argument as 'final'.
String x = arg;
x = "elephant";
arg = "giraffe"; // Compiler error: The passed argument variable arg cannot be re-assigned to another object.
}
Moral of the story:
If you want to ensure a variable always points to the same object,
mark the variable final.
Never Reassign Arguments
As good programming practice (in any language), you should never re-assign a parameter/argument variable to an object other than the object passed by the calling method. In the examples above, one should never write the line arg = . Since humans make mistakes, and programmers are human, let’s ask the compiler to assist us. Mark every parameter/argument variable as 'final' so that the compiler may find and flag any such re-assignments.
In Retrospect
As noted in other answers…
Given Java's original design goal of helping programmers to avoid dumb mistakes such as reading past the end of an array, Java should have been designed to automatically enforce all parameter/argument variables as 'final'. In other words, Arguments should not be variables. But hindsight is 20/20 vision, and the Java designers had their hands full at the time.
So, always add final to all arguments?
Should we add final to each and every method parameter being declared?
In theory, yes.
In practice, no.➥ Add final only when the method’s code is long or complicated, where the argument may be mistaken for a local or member variable and possibly re-assigned.
If you buy into the practice of never re-assigning an argument, you will be inclined to add a final to each. But this is tedious and makes the declaration a bit harder to read.
For short simple code where the argument is obviously an argument, and not a local variable nor a member variable, I do not bother adding the final. If the code is quite obvious, with no chance of me nor any other programmer doing maintenance or refactoring accidentally mistaking the argument variable as something other than an argument, then don’t bother. In my own work, I add final only in longer or more involved code where an argument might mistaken for a local or member variable.
#Another case added for the completeness
public class MyClass {
private int x;
//getters and setters
}
void doSomething( final MyClass arg ) { // Mark argument as 'final'.
arg = new MyClass(); // Compiler error: The passed argument variable arg cannot be re-assigned to another object.
arg.setX(20); // allowed
// We can re-assign properties of argument which is marked as final
}
record
Java 16 brings the new records feature. A record is a very brief way to define a class whose central purpose is to merely carry data, immutably and transparently.
You simply declare the class name along with the names and types of its member fields. The compiler implicitly provides the constructor, getters, equals & hashCode, and toString.
The fields are read-only, with no setters. So a record is one case where there is no need to mark the arguments final. They are already effectively final. Indeed, the compiler forbids using final when declaring the fields of a record.
public record Employee( String name , LocalDate whenHired ) // 🡄 Marking `final` here is *not* allowed.
{
}
If you provide an optional constructor, there you can mark final.
public record Employee(String name , LocalDate whenHired) // 🡄 Marking `final` here is *not* allowed.
{
public Employee ( final String name , final LocalDate whenHired ) // 🡄 Marking `final` here *is* allowed.
{
this.name = name;
whenHired = LocalDate.MIN; // 🡄 Compiler error, because of `final`.
this.whenHired = whenHired;
}
}

Sometimes it's nice to be explicit (for readability) that the variable doesn't change. Here's a simple example where using final can save some possible headaches:
public void setTest(String test) {
test = test;
}
If you forget the 'this' keyword on a setter, then the variable you want to set doesn't get set. However, if you used the final keyword on the parameter, then the bug would be caught at compile time.

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?"

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.

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.

Using final in a method parameter has nothing to do with what happens to the argument on the caller side. It is only meant to mark it as not changing inside that method. As I try to adopt a more functional programming style, I kind of see the value in that.

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.

Since Java passes copies of arguments I feel the relevance of final is rather limited. I guess the habit comes from the C++ era where you could prohibit reference content from being changed by doing a const char const *. I feel this kind of stuff makes you believe the developer is inherently stupid as f*** and needs to be protected against truly every character he types. In all humbleness may I say, I write very few bugs even though I omit final (unless I don't want someone to override my methods and classes). Maybe I'm just an old-school dev.

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.

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?

One additional reason to add final to parameter declarations is that it helps to identify variables that need to be renamed as part of a "Extract Method" refactoring. I have found that adding final to each parameter prior to starting a large method refactoring quickly tells me if there are any issues I need to address before continuing.
However, I generally remove them as superfluous at the end of the refactoring.

Follow up by Michel's post. I made myself another example to explain it. I hope it could help.
public static void main(String[] args){
MyParam myParam = thisIsWhy(new MyObj());
myParam.setArgNewName();
System.out.println(myParam.showObjName());
}
public static MyParam thisIsWhy(final MyObj obj){
MyParam myParam = new MyParam() {
#Override
public void setArgNewName() {
obj.name = "afterSet";
}
#Override
public String showObjName(){
return obj.name;
}
};
return myParam;
}
public static class MyObj{
String name = "beforeSet";
public MyObj() {
}
}
public abstract static class MyParam{
public abstract void setArgNewName();
public abstract String showObjName();
}
From the code above, in the method thisIsWhy(), we actually didn't assign the [argument MyObj obj] to a real reference in MyParam. In instead, we just use the [argument MyObj obj] in the method inside MyParam.
But after we finish the method thisIsWhy(), should the argument(object) MyObj still exist?
Seems like it should, because we can see in main we still call the method showObjName() and it needs to reach obj. MyParam will still use/reaches the method argument even the method already returned!
How Java really achieve this is to generate a copy also is a hidden reference of the argument MyObj obj inside the MyParam object ( but it's not a formal field in MyParam so that we can't see it )
As we call "showObjName", it will use that reference to get the corresponding value.
But if we didn't put the argument final, which leads a situation we can reassign a new memory(object) to the argument MyObj obj.
Technically there's no clash at all! If we are allowed to do that, below will be the situation:
We now have a hidden [MyObj obj] point to a [Memory A in heap] now live in MyParam object.
We also have another [MyObj obj] which is the argument point to a [Memory B in heap] now live in thisIsWhy method.
No clash, but "CONFUSING!!" Because they are all using the same "reference name" which is "obj".
To avoid this, set it as "final" to avoid programmer do the "mistake-prone" code.

This method has two signatures -- so why the error? [duplicate]

I'm sure you all know the behaviour I mean - code such as:
Thread thread = new Thread();
int activeCount = thread.activeCount();
provokes a compiler warning. Why isn't it an error?
EDIT:
To be clear: question has nothing to do with Threads. I realise Thread examples are often given when discussing this because of the potential to really mess things up with them. But really the problem is that such usage is always nonsense and you can't (competently) write such a call and mean it. Any example of this type of method call would be barmy. Here's another:
String hello = "hello";
String number123AsString = hello.valueOf(123);
Which makes it look as if each String instance comes with a "String valueOf(int i)" method.

Basically I believe the Java designers made a mistake when they designed the language, and it's too late to fix it due to the compatibility issues involved. Yes, it can lead to very misleading code. Yes, you should avoid it. Yes, you should make sure your IDE is configured to treat it as an error, IMO. Should you ever design a language yourself, bear it in mind as an example of the kind of thing to avoid :)
Just to respond to DJClayworth's point, here's what's allowed in C#:
public class Foo
{
public static void Bar()
{
}
}
public class Abc
{
public void Test()
{
// Static methods in the same class and base classes
// (and outer classes) are available, with no
// qualification
Def();
// Static methods in other classes are available via
// the class name
Foo.Bar();
Abc abc = new Abc();
// This would *not* be legal. It being legal has no benefit,
// and just allows misleading code
// abc.Def();
}
public static void Def()
{
}
}
Why do I think it's misleading? Because if I look at code someVariable.SomeMethod() I expect it to use the value of someVariable. If SomeMethod() is a static method, that expectation is invalid; the code is tricking me. How can that possibly be a good thing?
Bizarrely enough, Java won't let you use a potentially uninitialized variable to call a static method, despite the fact that the only information it's going to use is the declared type of the variable. It's an inconsistent and unhelpful mess. Why allow it?
EDIT: This edit is a response to Clayton's answer, which claims it allows inheritance for static methods. It doesn't. Static methods just aren't polymorphic. Here's a short but complete program to demonstrate that:
class Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Base.foo()");
}
}
class Derived extends Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Derived.foo()");
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Base b = new Derived();
b.foo(); // Prints "Base.foo()"
b = null;
b.foo(); // Still prints "Base.foo()"
}
}
As you can see, the execution-time value of b is completely ignored.

Why should it be an error? The instance has access to all the static methods. The static methods can't change the state of the instance (trying to is a compile error).
The problem with the well-known example that you give is very specific to threads, not static method calls. It looks as though you're getting the activeCount() for the thread referred to by thread, but you're really getting the count for the calling thread. This is a logical error that you as a programmer are making. Issuing a warning is the appropriate thing for the compiler to do in this case. It's up to you to heed the warning and fix your code.
EDIT: I realize that the syntax of the language is what's allowing you to write misleading code, but remember that the compiler and its warnings are part of the language too. The language allows you to do something that the compiler considers dubious, but it gives you the warning to make sure you're aware that it could cause problems.

They cannot make it an error anymore, because of all the code that is already out there.
I am with you on that it should be an error.
Maybe there should be an option/profile for the compiler to upgrade some warnings to errors.
Update: When they introduced the assert keyword in 1.4, which has similar potential compatibility issues with old code, they made it available only if you explicitly set the source mode to "1.4". I suppose one could make a it an error in a new source mode "java 7". But I doubt they would do it, considering that all the hassle it would cause. As others have pointed out, it is not strictly necessary to prevent you from writing confusing code. And language changes to Java should be limited to the strictly necessary at this point.

Short answer - the language allows it, so its not an error.

The really important thing, from the compiler's perspective, is that it be able to resolve symbols. In the case of a static method, it needs to know what class to look in for it -- since it's not associated with any particular object. Java's designers obviously decided that since they could determine the class of an object, they could also resolve the class of any static method for that object from any instance of the object. They choose to allow this -- swayed, perhaps, by #TofuBeer's observation -- to give the programmer some convenience. Other language designers have made different choices. I probably would have fallen into the latter camp, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I probably would allow the usage that #TofuBeer mentions, but having allowed it my position on not allowing access from an instance variable is less tenable.

Likely for the same logical that makes this not an error:
public class X
{
public static void foo()
{
}
public void bar()
{
foo(); // no need to do X.foo();
}
}

It isn't an error because it's part of the spec, but you're obviously asking about the rationale, which we can all guess at.
My guess is that the source of this is actually to allow a method in a class to invoke a static method in the same class without the hassle. Since calling x() is legal (even without the self class name), calling this.x() should be legal as well, and therefore calling via any object was made legal as well.
This also helps encourage users to turn private functions into static if they don't change the state.
Besides, compilers generally try to avoid declaring errors when there is no way that this could lead to a direct error. Since a static method does not change the state or care about the invoking object, it does not cause an actual error (just confusion) to allow this. A warning suffices.

The purpose of the instance variable reference is only to supply the type which encloses the static. If you look at the byte code invoking a static via instance.staticMethod or EnclosingClass.staticMethod produces the same invoke static method bytecode. No reference to the instance appears.
The answer as too why it's in there, well it just is. As long as you use the class. and not via an instance you will help avoid confusion in the future.

Probably you can change it in your IDE (in Eclipse Preferences -> Java -> Compiler -> Errors/Warnings)

There's not option for it. In java (like many other lang.) you can have access to all static members of a class through its class name or instance object of that class. That would be up to you and your case and software solution which one you should use that gives you more readability.

It's pretty old topic but still up-to-date and surprisingly bringing higher impact nowadays. As Jon mentioned, it might be just a mistake Java's designers made at the very beginning. But I wouldn't imagine before it can have impact on security.
Many coders know Apache Velocity, flexible and powerful template engine. It's so powerful that it allows to feed template with a set of named objects - stricly considered as objects from programming language (Java originally). Those objects can be accessed from within template like in programming language so for example Java's String instance can be used with all its public fields, properties and methods
$input.isEmpty()
where input is a String, runs directly through JVM and returns true or false to Velocity parser's output). So far so good.
But in Java all objects inherit from Object so our end-users can also put this to the template
$input.getClass()
to get an instance of String Class.
And with this reference they can also call a static method forName(String) on this
$input.getClass().forName("java.io.FileDescriptor")
use any class name and use it to whatever web server's account can do (deface, steal DB content, inspect config files, ...)
This exploit is somehow (in specific context) described here: https://github.com/veracode-research/solr-injection#7-cve-2019-17558-rce-via-velocity-template-by-_s00py
It wouldn't be possible if calling static methods from reference to the instance of class was prohibited.
I'm not saying that a particular programming framework is better than the other one or so but I just want to put a comparison. There's a port of Apache Velocity for .NET. In C# it's not possible to call static methods just from instance's reference what makes exploit like this useless:
$input.GetType().GetType("System.IO.FileStream, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089")

I just consider this:
instanceVar.staticMethod();
to be shorthand for this:
instanceVar.getClass().staticMethod();
If you always had to do this:
SomeClass.staticMethod();
then you wouldn't be able to leverage inheritance for static methods.
That is, by calling the static method via the instance you don't need to know what concrete class the instance is at compile time, only that it implements staticMethod() somewhere along the inheritance chain.
EDIT: This answer is wrong. See comments for details.

Using superclass type for subclass instance

I know this question has been asked a lot, but the usual answers are far from satisfying in my view.
given the following class hierarchy:
class SuperClass{}
class SubClass extends SuperClass{}
why does people use this pattern to instantiate SubClass:
SuperClass instance = new SubClass();
instead of this one:
SubClass instance = new SubClass();
Now, the usual answer I see is that this is in order to send instance as an argument to a method that requires an instance of SuperClass like here:
void aFunction(SuperClass param){}
//somewhere else in the code...
...
aFunction(instance);
...
But I can send an instance of SubClass to aFunction regardless of the type of variable that held it! meaning the following code will compile and run with no errors (assuming the previously provided definition of aFunction):
SubClass instance = new SubClass();
aFunction(instance);
In fact, AFAIK variable types are meaningless at runtime. They are used only by the compiler!
Another possible reason to define a variable as SuperClass would be if it had several different subclasses and the variable is supposed to switch it's reference to several of them at runtime, but I for example only saw this happen in class (not super, not sub. just class). Definitly not sufficient to require a general pattern...

The main argument for this type of coding is because of the Liskov Substituion Principle, which states that if X is a subtype of type T, then any instance of T should be able to be swapped out with X.
The advantage of this is simple. Let's say we've got a program that has a properties file, that looks like this:
mode="Run"
And your program looks like this:
public void Program
{
public Mode mode;
public static void main(String[] args)
{
mode = Config.getMode();
mode.run();
}
}
So briefly, this program is going to use the config file to define the mode this program is going to boot up in. In the Config class, getMode() might look like this:
public Mode getMode()
{
String type = getProperty("mode"); // Now equals "Run" in our example.
switch(type)
{
case "Run": return new RunMode();
case "Halt": return new HaltMode();
}
}
Why this wouldn't work otherwise
Now, because you have a reference of type Mode, you can completely change the functionality of your program with simply changing the value of the mode property. If you had public RunMode mode, you would not be able to use this type of functionality.
Why this is a good thing
This pattern has caught on so well because it opens programs up for extensibility. It means that this type of desirable functionality is possible with the smallest amount of changes, should the author desire to implement this kind of functionality. And I mean, come on. You change one word in a config file and completely alter the program flow, without editing a single line of code. That is desirable.

In many cases it doesn't really matter but is considered good style.
You limit the information provided to users of the reference to what is nessary, i.e. that it is an instance of type SuperClass. It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter whether the variable references an object of type SuperClass or SubClass.
Update:
This also is true for local variables that are never used as a parameter etc.
As I said, it often doesn't matter but is considered good style because you might later change the variable to hold a parameter or another sub type of the super type. In that case, if you used the sub type first, your further code (in that single scope, e.g. method) might accidentially rely on the API of one specific sub type and changing the variable to hold another type might break your code.
I'll expand on Chris' example:
Consider you have the following:
RunMode mode = new RunMode();
...
You might now rely on the fact that mode is a RunMode.
However, later you might want to change that line to:
RunMode mode = Config.getMode(); //breaks
Oops, that doesn't compile. Ok, let's change that.
Mode mode = Config.getMode();
That line would compile now, but your further code might break, because you accidentially relied to mode being an instance of RunMode. Note that it might compile but could break at runtime or screw your logic.

SuperClass instance = new SubClass1()
after some lines, you may do instance = new SubClass2();
But if you write, SubClass1 instance = new SubClass1();
after some lines, you can't do instance = new SubClass2()

It is called polymorphis and it is superclass reference to a subclass object.
In fact, AFAIK variable types are meaningless at runtime. They are used
only by the compiler!
Not sure where you read this from. At compile time compiler only know the class of the reference type(so super class in case of polymorphism as you have stated). At runtime java knows the actual type of Object(.getClass()). At compile time java compiler only checks if the invoked method definition is in the class of reference type. Which method to invoke(function overloading) is determined at runtime based on the actual type of the object.
Why polymorphism?
Well google to find more but here is an example. You have a common method draw(Shape s). Now shape can be a Rectangle, a Circle any CustomShape. If you dont use Shape reference in draw() method you will have to create different methods for each type of(subclasses) of shape.

This is from a design point of view, you will have one super class and there can be multiple subclasses where in you want to extend the functionality.
An implementer who will have to write a subclass need only to focus on which methods to override

What's the point of the "final" keyword for method arguments in Java? [duplicate]

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;
}

Stop a Variable’s Reassignment
While these answers are intellectually interesting, I've not read the short simple answer:
Use the keyword final when you want the compiler to prevent a
variable from being re-assigned to a different object.
Whether the variable is a static variable, member variable, local variable, or argument/parameter variable, the effect is entirely the same.
Example
Let’s see the effect in action.
Consider this simple method, where the two variables (arg and x) can both be re-assigned different objects.
// Example use of this method:
// this.doSomething( "tiger" );
void doSomething( String arg ) {
String x = arg; // Both variables now point to the same String object.
x = "elephant"; // This variable now points to a different String object.
arg = "giraffe"; // Ditto. Now neither variable points to the original passed String.
}
Mark the local variable as final. This results in a compiler error.
void doSomething( String arg ) {
final String x = arg; // Mark variable as 'final'.
x = "elephant"; // Compiler error: The final local variable x cannot be assigned.
arg = "giraffe";
}
Instead, let’s mark the parameter variable as final. This too results in a compiler error.
void doSomething( final String arg ) { // Mark argument as 'final'.
String x = arg;
x = "elephant";
arg = "giraffe"; // Compiler error: The passed argument variable arg cannot be re-assigned to another object.
}
Moral of the story:
If you want to ensure a variable always points to the same object,
mark the variable final.
Never Reassign Arguments
As good programming practice (in any language), you should never re-assign a parameter/argument variable to an object other than the object passed by the calling method. In the examples above, one should never write the line arg = . Since humans make mistakes, and programmers are human, let’s ask the compiler to assist us. Mark every parameter/argument variable as 'final' so that the compiler may find and flag any such re-assignments.
In Retrospect
As noted in other answers…
Given Java's original design goal of helping programmers to avoid dumb mistakes such as reading past the end of an array, Java should have been designed to automatically enforce all parameter/argument variables as 'final'. In other words, Arguments should not be variables. But hindsight is 20/20 vision, and the Java designers had their hands full at the time.
So, always add final to all arguments?
Should we add final to each and every method parameter being declared?
In theory, yes.
In practice, no.➥ Add final only when the method’s code is long or complicated, where the argument may be mistaken for a local or member variable and possibly re-assigned.
If you buy into the practice of never re-assigning an argument, you will be inclined to add a final to each. But this is tedious and makes the declaration a bit harder to read.
For short simple code where the argument is obviously an argument, and not a local variable nor a member variable, I do not bother adding the final. If the code is quite obvious, with no chance of me nor any other programmer doing maintenance or refactoring accidentally mistaking the argument variable as something other than an argument, then don’t bother. In my own work, I add final only in longer or more involved code where an argument might mistaken for a local or member variable.
#Another case added for the completeness
public class MyClass {
private int x;
//getters and setters
}
void doSomething( final MyClass arg ) { // Mark argument as 'final'.
arg = new MyClass(); // Compiler error: The passed argument variable arg cannot be re-assigned to another object.
arg.setX(20); // allowed
// We can re-assign properties of argument which is marked as final
}
record
Java 16 brings the new records feature. A record is a very brief way to define a class whose central purpose is to merely carry data, immutably and transparently.
You simply declare the class name along with the names and types of its member fields. The compiler implicitly provides the constructor, getters, equals & hashCode, and toString.
The fields are read-only, with no setters. So a record is one case where there is no need to mark the arguments final. They are already effectively final. Indeed, the compiler forbids using final when declaring the fields of a record.
public record Employee( String name , LocalDate whenHired ) // 🡄 Marking `final` here is *not* allowed.
{
}
If you provide an optional constructor, there you can mark final.
public record Employee(String name , LocalDate whenHired) // 🡄 Marking `final` here is *not* allowed.
{
public Employee ( final String name , final LocalDate whenHired ) // 🡄 Marking `final` here *is* allowed.
{
this.name = name;
whenHired = LocalDate.MIN; // 🡄 Compiler error, because of `final`.
this.whenHired = whenHired;
}
}

Sometimes it's nice to be explicit (for readability) that the variable doesn't change. Here's a simple example where using final can save some possible headaches:
public void setTest(String test) {
test = test;
}
If you forget the 'this' keyword on a setter, then the variable you want to set doesn't get set. However, if you used the final keyword on the parameter, then the bug would be caught at compile time.

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?"

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.

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.

Using final in a method parameter has nothing to do with what happens to the argument on the caller side. It is only meant to mark it as not changing inside that method. As I try to adopt a more functional programming style, I kind of see the value in that.

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.

Since Java passes copies of arguments I feel the relevance of final is rather limited. I guess the habit comes from the C++ era where you could prohibit reference content from being changed by doing a const char const *. I feel this kind of stuff makes you believe the developer is inherently stupid as f*** and needs to be protected against truly every character he types. In all humbleness may I say, I write very few bugs even though I omit final (unless I don't want someone to override my methods and classes). Maybe I'm just an old-school dev.

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.

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?

One additional reason to add final to parameter declarations is that it helps to identify variables that need to be renamed as part of a "Extract Method" refactoring. I have found that adding final to each parameter prior to starting a large method refactoring quickly tells me if there are any issues I need to address before continuing.
However, I generally remove them as superfluous at the end of the refactoring.

Follow up by Michel's post. I made myself another example to explain it. I hope it could help.
public static void main(String[] args){
MyParam myParam = thisIsWhy(new MyObj());
myParam.setArgNewName();
System.out.println(myParam.showObjName());
}
public static MyParam thisIsWhy(final MyObj obj){
MyParam myParam = new MyParam() {
#Override
public void setArgNewName() {
obj.name = "afterSet";
}
#Override
public String showObjName(){
return obj.name;
}
};
return myParam;
}
public static class MyObj{
String name = "beforeSet";
public MyObj() {
}
}
public abstract static class MyParam{
public abstract void setArgNewName();
public abstract String showObjName();
}
From the code above, in the method thisIsWhy(), we actually didn't assign the [argument MyObj obj] to a real reference in MyParam. In instead, we just use the [argument MyObj obj] in the method inside MyParam.
But after we finish the method thisIsWhy(), should the argument(object) MyObj still exist?
Seems like it should, because we can see in main we still call the method showObjName() and it needs to reach obj. MyParam will still use/reaches the method argument even the method already returned!
How Java really achieve this is to generate a copy also is a hidden reference of the argument MyObj obj inside the MyParam object ( but it's not a formal field in MyParam so that we can't see it )
As we call "showObjName", it will use that reference to get the corresponding value.
But if we didn't put the argument final, which leads a situation we can reassign a new memory(object) to the argument MyObj obj.
Technically there's no clash at all! If we are allowed to do that, below will be the situation:
We now have a hidden [MyObj obj] point to a [Memory A in heap] now live in MyParam object.
We also have another [MyObj obj] which is the argument point to a [Memory B in heap] now live in thisIsWhy method.
No clash, but "CONFUSING!!" Because they are all using the same "reference name" which is "obj".
To avoid this, set it as "final" to avoid programmer do the "mistake-prone" code.

What's the difference between anonymous classes in Java and closures?

It looks like anonymous class provides the basic functionality of closure, is that true?

There is almost no difference. In fact the there is an old saying about closures and objects. Closures are the poor man's object, and objects are the poor man's closure. Both are equally powerful in terms of what they can do. We are only arguing over expressiveness.
In Java we are modeling closures with Anonymous Objects. In fact a little history here is that originally Java had the ability to modify the outward scope without the use of final. This works and worked fine for Objects allocated in the local method scope, but when it comes to primitives this caused lots of controversy. Primitives are allocated on the stack so in order for them to live past the execution of the outer method Java would have to allocate memory on the heap and move those members into the heap. At that time people were very new to garbage collection and they didn't trust it so the claim was Java shouldn't allocate memory without explicit instruction from the programmer. In efforts to strike a compromise Java decided to use the final keyword.
http://madbean.com/2003/mb2003-49/
Now the interesting thing is that Java could remove that restriction and make use of the final keyword optional now that everyone is more comfortable with the garbage collector and it could be completely compatible from a language perspective. Although the work around for this issue is simple to define instance variables on your Anonymous Object and you can modify those as much as you wish. In fact that could be an easy way to implement closure style references to local scope by adding public instance variables to the anonymous class through the compiler, and rewriting the source code to use those instead of stack variables.
public Object someFunction() {
int someValue = 0;
SomeAnonymousClass implementation = new SomeAnonymousClass() {
public boolean callback() {
someValue++;
}
}
implementation.callback();
return someValue;
}
Would be rewritten to:
public Object someFunction() {
SomeAnonymousClass implementation = new SomeAnonymousClass() {
public int someValue = 0;
public boolean callback() {
someValue++;
}
}
implementation.callback();
// all references to someValue could be rewritten to
// use this instance variable instead.
return implementation.someValue;
}
I think the reason people complain about Anonymous inner classes has more to do with static typing vs dynamic typing. In Java we have to define an agreed upon interface for the implementor of the anonymous class and the code accepting the anonymous class. We have to do that so we can type check everything at compile time. If we had 1st class functions then Java would need to define a syntax for declaring a method's parameters and return types as a data type to remain a statically typed language for type safety. This would almost be as complex as defining an interface. (An interface can define multiple methods, a syntax for declaring 1st class methods would only be for one method). You could think of this as a short form interface syntax. Under the hood the compiler could translate the short form notation to an interface at compile time.
There are a lot of things that could be done to Java to improve the Anonymous Class experience without ditching the language or major surgery.

As far as they both affect otherwise "private" scoping, in a very limited sense, yes. however, there are so many differences that the answer might as well be no.
Since Java lacks the ability to handle blocks of code as true R-values, inner classes cannot pass blocks of code as is typically done in continuations. Therefore the closure as a continuation technique is completely missing.
While the lifetime of a class to be garbage collected is extended by people holding inner classes (similar to closures keeping variables alive while being rebound to the closure), the ability of Java to do renaming via binding is limited to comply with the existing Java syntax.
And to allow threads to properly not stomp over each other's data using Java's thread contention model, inner classes are further restricted with access to data that is guaranteed not to upset, aka final locals.
This completely ignores the other inner classes (aka static inner classes) which is slightly different in feel. In other words, it touches upon a few items that closures could handle, but falls short of the minimum requirements that most people would consider necessary to be called a closure.

IMHO, They serve a similar purpose, however a closure is intended to be more concise and potentially provide more functionality.
Say you want to use a local variable using an anonymous class.
final int[] i = { 0 };
final double[] d = { 0.0 };
Runnable run = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
d[0] = i[0] * 1.5;
}
};
executor.submit(run);
Closures avoid the need for most of the boiler plate coding by allowing you write just what is intended.
int i = 0;
double d = 0.0;
Runnable run = { => d = i * 1.5; };
executor.submit(run);
or even
executor.submit({ => d = i * 1.5; });
or if closures support code blocks.
executor.submit() {
d = i * 1.5;
}