in java, why do closured variables need to be declared final?

in java, why do closured variables need to be declared final? - java

final Object o;
List l = new ArrayList(){{
// closure over o, in lexical scope
this.add(o);
}};
why must o be declared final? why don't other JVM languages with mutable vars have this requirement?

This is not JVM-deep, it all happens at syntactic-sugar level. The reason is that exporting a non-final var via a closure makes it vulnerable to datarace issues and, since Java was designed to be a "blue-collar" language, such a surprising change in the behavior of an otherwise tame and safe local var was deemed way too "advanced".

It's not hard to deduce logically why it has to be final.
In Java, when a local variable is captured into an anonymous class, it is copied by value. The reason for this is that the object may live longer than the current function call (e.g. it may be returned, etc.), but local variables only live as long as the current function call. So it is not possible to simply "reference" the variable because it may not exist by then. Some languages like Python, Ruby, JavaScript, do allow you to reference variables after the scope is gone, by keeping a reference to the environment in the heap or something. But this is hard to do with the JVM because local variables are allocated on the function's stack frame, which is destroyed when the function call is done.
Now, since it is copied, there are two copies of the variable (and more, if there are more closures capturing this variable). If they were assignable, then you can change one of them without changing the other. For example, hypothetically:
Object o;
Object x = new Object(){
public String toString() {
return o.toString();
}
};
o = somethingElse;
System.out.println(x.toString()); // prints the original object, not the re-assigned one
// even though "o" now refers to the re-assigned one
Since there is only one o variable in the scope, you would expect them to to refer to the same thing. In the example above, after you assign to o, you would expect a later access of o from the object to refer to the new value; but it doesn't. This would be surprising and unexpected to the programmer, and violates the principle that uses of the same variable refer to the same thing.
So to avoid this surprise, they mandate that you cannot assign to it anywhere; i.e. it has to be final.
Now, of course, you can still initialize the final variable from a non-final variable. And inside the closure, you can still assign the final variable to something else non-final.
Object a; // non-final
final Object o = a;
Object x = new Object(){
Object m = o; // non-final
public String toString() {
return ,.toString();
}
};
But then this is all good since you are explicitly using different variables, so there is no surprise about what it does.

Related

Java Final Keyword vs C++ const pointer vs C++ reference

as I see it C++ constant pointer, C++ reference and Java final keyword (final on a variable) are all the same thing or at least act the same way.
they prevent the variable to change his "pointed address" but the internal value can be changed.
am I right for thinking that?
If not what are the differences?
regarding the c++ part
what are the differences between a constant pointer and a reference?
they look like a different way to do the same thing, why adding the reference concept to c++ if the concept already existed in the form of constant pointer?
regarding the Java part
is there a way(in Java) to simulate the same behavior of a pointer to a constant value of c++? basically is there a way to make constant values?
something more similar to const Shape* s = new Shape;
edit: I found at least 1 reason to introduce the reference concept
when we define a copy constructor we need to get the object as an argument and without a reference, we will get an infinite loop
C++:
class Shape{
public:
int member = 3;
};
Shape s1;
Shape s2;
Shape* const cp_var_1 = &s1;
cp_var_1->member = 5; // valid
cp_var_1 = &s2; //not valid
Shape& ref_var_2 = s1;
ref_var_2.member = 6; // valid - s1 changed as well
// cant change ref_var_2 to reference other variable (like s2)
ref_var_2 = s2;
// assignment operator called - s1 and s2 content are the same
// but ref_var_2 still reference s1
Java:
class Shape{
public int member = 3;
}
Shape s1 = new Shape();
Shape s2 = new Shape();
final Shape final_var_3 = s1;
final_var_3.member = 7; // valid
final_var_3 = s2; // not valid

Yes, you're precisely correct: in final var_3 = s1;, the final prevents you from ever making var_3 reference anything else, but you can dereference the variable and do whatever you want to what you find there: var_3.member = 7; is therefore valid (the dot is the dereference operator).
Note that the final keyword in java is used for different purposes. You can mark classes as final, which means they cannot be extended. (class Foo extends SomeClassMarkedFinal {} will not compile). final can also be applied to methods: In that case, it means any subclass may not override this method. Whilst the english name final does seem like a good term for all of this behaviour, the final as used on variable declarations, and the final as used on methods and classes, are otherwise utterly unrelated.
Many java types (such as java.lang.String, java.lang.Integer, and many more) are so-called 'immutable': These objects have absolutely no way to change anything about them. java's strings are objects (not ersatz char arrays), you can't access the underlying char array, there is no clear() or setChar() method, etc: Therefore, a final variable of type string is completely constant.
Java does not (currently) offer any way of marking a type as 'constant' in this sense, and it probably wouldn't make much sense to add this as a notion. For example, in java, java.io.File, which represents a file path, is immutable: It has absolutely no methods to mutate any of its state.
And yet, is it immutable? Is it 'constant'? If I run file.delete(), I can most assuredly observe a change, even though the object itself (which has just one field, of type string, containing a file path) hasn't changed at all.

The final keyword in java does have (basically) the same effect as a reference or constant pointer in c++, but const in c++ ends up being a lot more general and more powerful.
If you have a pointer or a reference to a const object, then the object itself should be regarded as immutable. For example, if a function takes a const reference to an object, I can safely pass in objects with the assumption that they won’t be modified. And if I write a const member function, then I’m promising that that member function won’t modify the underlying object.
Adding const to function parameters (especially those passed by reference or pointer) can make it a lot easier for programmers to reason about code. They know that they can expect those inputs to remain unchanged. This is an enormous benefit when tracking down bugs, and it makes it easier to reason about the interface for external libraries that use const properly.
Finally, unlike in Java, a function that takes a value by reference in C++ is allowed (and encouraged) to assume that the reference you passed it isn’t null. This is good. If you write your code so that your references are never null, the code will be simpler, cleaner, and faster (since you won’t have to do null checks) .

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.

Lambdas: local variables need final, instance variables don't

In a lambda, local variables need to be final, but instance variables don't. Why so?

The fundamental difference between a field and a local variable is that the local variable is copied when JVM creates a lambda instance. On the other hand, fields can be changed freely, because the changes to them are propagated to the outside class instance as well (their scope is the whole outside class, as Boris pointed out below).
The easiest way of thinking about anonymous classes, closures and labmdas is from the variable scope perspective; imagine a copy constructor added for all local variables you pass to a closure.

In a document of project lambda, State of the Lambda v4, under Section 7. Variable capture, it is mentioned that:
It is our intent to prohibit capture of mutable local variables. The
reason is that idioms like this:
int sum = 0;
list.forEach(e -> { sum += e.size(); });
are fundamentally serial; it is quite difficult to write lambda bodies
like this that do not have race conditions. Unless we are willing to
enforce—preferably at compile time—that such a function cannot escape
its capturing thread, this feature may well cause more trouble than it
solves.
Another thing to note here is, local variables are passed in the constructor of an inner class when you access them inside your inner class, and this won't work with non-final variable because value of non-final variables can be changed after construction.
While in case of an instance variable, the compiler passes a reference of the object and object reference will be used to access instance variables. So, it is not required in case of instance variables.
PS : It is worth mentioning that anonymous classes can access only final local variables (in Java SE 7), while in Java SE 8 you can access effectively final variables also inside lambda as well as inner classes.

In Java 8 in Action book, this situation is explained as:
You may be asking yourself why local variables have these restrictions.
First, there’s a key
difference in how instance and local variables are implemented behind the scenes. Instance
variables are stored on the heap, whereas local variables live on the stack. If a lambda could
access the local variable directly and the lambda were used in a thread, then the thread using the
lambda could try to access the variable after the thread that allocated the variable had
deallocated it. Hence, Java implements access to a free local variable as access to a copy of it
rather than access to the original variable. This makes no difference if the local variable is
assigned to only once—hence the restriction.
Second, this restriction also discourages typical imperative programming patterns (which, as we
explain in later chapters, prevent easy parallelization) that mutate an outer variable.

Because instance variables are always accessed through a field access operation on a reference to some object, i.e. some_expression.instance_variable. Even when you don't explicitly access it through dot notation, like instance_variable, it is implicitly treated as this.instance_variable (or if you're in an inner class accessing an outer class's instance variable, OuterClass.this.instance_variable, which is under the hood this.<hidden reference to outer this>.instance_variable).
Thus an instance variable is never directly accessed, and the real "variable" you're directly accessing is this (which is "effectively final" since it is not assignable), or a variable at the beginning of some other expression.

Putting up some concepts for future visitors:
Basically it all boils down to the point that compiler should be able to deterministically tell that lambda expression body is not working on a stale copy of the variables.
In case of local variables, compiler has no way to be sure that lambda expression body is not working on a stale copy of the variable unless that variable is final or effectively final, so local variables should be either final or effectively final.
Now, in case of instance fields, when you access an instance field inside the lambda expression then compiler will append a this to that variable access (if you have not done it explicitly) and since this is effectively final so compiler is sure that lambda expression body will always have the latest copy of the variable (please note that multi-threading is out of scope right now for this discussion). So, in case instance fields, compiler can tell that lambda body has latest copy of instance variable so instance variables need not to be final or effectively final. Please refer below screen shot from an Oracle slide:
Also, please note that if you are accessing an instance field in lambda expression and that is getting executed in multi-threaded environment then you could potentially run in problem.

It seems like you are asking about variables that you can reference from a lambda body.
From the JLS §15.27.2
Any local variable, formal parameter, or exception parameter used but not declared in a lambda expression must either be declared final or be effectively final (§4.12.4), or a compile-time error occurs where the use is attempted.
So you don't need to declare variables as final you just need to make sure that they are "effectively final". This is the same rule as applies to anonymous classes.

Within Lambda expressions you can use effectively final variables from the surrounding scope.
Effectively means that it is not mandatory to declare variable final but make sure you do not change its state within the lambda expresssion.
You can also use this within closures and using "this" means the enclosing object but not the lambda itself as closures are anonymous functions and they do not have class associated with them.
So when you use any field (let say private Integer i;)from the enclosing class which is not declared final and not effectively final it will still work as the compiler makes the trick on your behalf and insert "this" (this.i).
private Integer i = 0;
public void process(){
Consumer<Integer> c = (i)-> System.out.println(++this.i);
c.accept(i);
}

Here is a code example, as I didn't expect this either, I expected to be unable to modify anything outside my lambda
public class LambdaNonFinalExample {
static boolean odd = false;
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
//boolean odd = false; - If declared inside the method then I get the expected "Effectively Final" compile error
runLambda(() -> odd = true);
System.out.println("Odd=" + odd);
}
public static void runLambda(Callable c) throws Exception {
c.call();
}
}
Output:
Odd=true

YES, you can change the member variables of the instance but you CANNOT change the instance itself just like when you handle variables.
Something like this as mentioned:
class Car {
public String name;
}
public void testLocal() {
int theLocal = 6;
Car bmw = new Car();
bmw.name = "BMW";
Stream.iterate(0, i -> i + 2).limit(2)
.forEach(i -> {
// bmw = new Car(); // LINE - 1;
bmw.name = "BMW NEW"; // LINE - 2;
System.out.println("Testing local variables: " + (theLocal + i));
});
// have to comment this to ensure it's `effectively final`;
// theLocal = 2;
}
The basic principle to restrict the local variables is about data and computation validity
If the lambda, evaluated by the second thread, were given the ability to mutate local variables. Even the ability to read the value of mutable local variables from a different thread would introduce the necessity for synchronization or the use of volatile in order to avoid reading stale data.
But as we know the principal purpose of the lambdas
Amongst the different reasons for this, the most pressing one for the Java platform is that they make it easier to distribute processing of collections over multiple threads.
Quite unlike local variables, local instance can be mutated, because it's shared globally. We can understand this better via the heap and stack difference:
Whenever an object is created, it’s always stored in the Heap space and stack memory contains the reference to it. Stack memory only contains local primitive variables and reference variables to objects in heap space.
So to sum up, there are two points I think really matter:
It's really hard to make the instance effectively final, which might cause lots of senseless burden (just imagine the deep-nested class);
the instance itself is already globally shared and lambda is also shareable among threads, so they can work together properly since we know we're handling the mutation and want to pass this mutation around;
Balance point here is clear: if you know what you are doing, you can do it easily but if not then the default restriction will help to avoid insidious bugs.
P.S. If the synchronization required in instance mutation, you can use directly the stream reduction methods or if there is dependency issue in instance mutation, you still can use thenApply or thenCompose in Function while mapping or methods similar.

First, there is a key difference in how local and instance variables are implemented behind the scenes. Instance variables are stored in the heap, whereas local variables stored in the stack.
If the lambda could access the local variable directly and the lambda was used in a thread, then the thread using the lambda could try to access the variable after the thread that allocated the variable had deallocated it.
In short: to ensure another thread does not override the original value, it is better to provide access to the copy variable rather than the original one.

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.

Constant Object vs Immutable Object

Can I use the term "Constant Object" in the place of the term "Immutable Object"? Though I get the feeling that Immutable for an Object is what Constant is for a variable, I am not sure if this terminology is accepted. Please help me understand.

In fact, in Java the term constant has no defined meaning. It occurs in the JLS only in the larger term compile time constant expression, which is an expression which can (and must) be calculated by the compiler instead of at runtime. (And the keyword const is reserved to allow compilers to give better error messages.)
In Java, we instead use the term final to refer to variables (whether class, object or local ones) who can't be changed, and immutable when we refer to objects who can't change. Both can be used when speaking about a variable x - the first then means the variable itself (meaning it can't be switched to another object), the second means the object behind the variable. Thus here the two meanings are orthogonal, and are often combined to create a "true constant".

I would read constant as being the same object (the same reference), whereas immutable clearly means to me the fact that the object doesn't change.
Since these are two different things, I would perhaps refer to this:
private final Immutable i = new Immutable();
as being a constant immutable object.

Constant often has a very specific meaning in different programming languages. In java, a constant already refers to a constant variable, a variable that cannot be changed after assignment, e.g.:
final int FOO = 1;
FOO = 4; // constant variable cannot be changed.
An immutable object is a constant object in the sense that its properties can never be changed, but of course an object pointed to by a constant variable can still be changed. So to avoid confusion, the term immutable (which literally means "unchanging over time") is used.

They are very close in meaning, with the understanding that an Object contains methods while a Constant is generally considered to only contain data.
Within Java, there's the additional consideration of the keyword final, which basically means non-reassignable. Some people will casually call a final variable a constant (as it's reference to a particular object is a constant. This often comes about due to confusion as to the particular roles of the member and the object it refers to, as 95% of the time a person does this to refer to an immutable Object.
Not every method is to return back data that depends wholly upon the internal members. For example System.currentTimeMillis() returns back a Unix like timestamp, yet there would be no need for the actual "System" object to change.

Immutability of the object means it can't transform it's state... i.e. can't mutate... For examle
final class Person {
private int age = 0;
public Person(int age) { this.age = age; }
}
The object to this type are immutable objects since you can't change it's state.... (forget Reflection for a moment)
Constant at the other hand in Programming means inline... Even the compiler does that they inline the values of the constant variables for primative types... for object types it means the ref variable can't be reassigned.

We Keep Coding

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.