We Keep Coding

Should method parameters be made as final in Java8

In java8, variables are effectively final if we do not assign them again. So, it means if we are declaring a method and if we don't declare its parameters to be final, then they are effectively final if we don't assign them in the method definition. So, does making the parameters final make any difference in java8?

IMO, the reason to mark a parameter final is to show that you are depending on it being final. This might be the case if you are using the parameter in a lambda expression or an inner class. Marking the parameter final tells the next programmer who comes along (or you a year from now) that there is code that relies on that parameter being final.

No. it isn't effectively final unless you use it inside anonymous function or lambda expression. Not in normal methods, why should it be.

I use final the same way as you. To me it looks superfluous on local variables and method parameters, and it doesn't convey useful extra information.
One important thing is that strive to keep my methods short and clean, each doing a single task. Thus my local variables and parameters have a very limited scope, and are used only for a single purpose. This minimizes the chances of reassigning them inadvertently.
Moreover, as you surely know, final doesn't guarantee that you can't change the value/state of a (nonprimitive) variable. Only that you can't reassign the reference to that object once initialized. In other words, it works seamlessly only with variables of primitive or immutable types. Consider
final String s = "forever";
final int i = 1;
final Map<String, Integer> m = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
s = "never"; // compilation error!
i++; // compilation error!
m.put(s, i); // fine
This means that in many cases it still doesn't make it easier to understand what happens inside the code, and misunderstanding this may in fact cause subtle bugs which are hard to detect

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.

when to use 'final' in method arguments? [duplicate]

What difference that final makes between the code below. Is there any advantage in declaring the arguments as final.
public String changeTimezone( Timestamp stamp, Timezone fTz, Timezone toTz){
return ....
}
public String changeTimezone(final Timestamp stamp, final Timezone fTz,
final Timezone toTz){
return ....
}

As a formal method parameter is a local variable, you can access them from inner anonymous classes only if they are declared as final.
This saves you from declaring another local final variable in the method body:
void m(final int param) {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.err.println(param);
}
}).start();
}

Extract from The final word on the final keyword
Final Parameters
The following sample declares final parameters:
public void doSomething(final int i, final int j)
{
// cannot change the value of i or j here...
// any change would be visible only inside the method...
}
final is used here to ensure the two
indexes i and j won't accidentally be
reset by the method. It's a handy way
to protect against an insidious bug
that erroneously changes the value of
your parameters. Generally speaking,
short methods are a better way to
protect from this class of errors, but
final parameters can be a useful
addition to your coding style.
Note that final parameters are not
considered part of the method
signature, and are ignored by the
compiler when resolving method calls.
Parameters can be declared final (or
not) with no influence on how the
method is overriden.

The final prevents you from assigning a new value to the variable, and this can be helpful in catching typos. Stylistically you might like to keep the parameters received unchanged and assign only to local variables, so final would help to enforce that style.
Must admit I rarely remember to use final for parameters, maybe I should.
public int example(final int basicRate){
int discountRate;
discountRate = basicRate - 10;
// ... lots of code here
if ( isGoldCustomer ) {
basicRate--; // typo, we intended to say discountRate--, final catches this
}
// ... more code here
return discountRate;
}

It doesn't make a lot of difference. It just means that you can't write:
stamp = null;
fTz = new ...;
but you can still write:
stamp.setXXX(...);
fTz.setXXX(...);
It's mainly a hint to the maintenance programmer that follows you that you aren't going to assign a new value to the parameter somewhere in the middle of your method where it isn't obvious and might therefore cause confusion.

The final keyword when used for parameters/variables in Java marks the reference as final. In case of passing an object to another method, the system creates a copy of the reference variable and passes it to the method. By marking the new references final, you protect them from reassignment. It's considered sometimes a good coding practice.

For the body of this method the final keyword will prevent the argument references to be accidentally reassigned giving a compile error on those cases (most IDEs will complain straight away). Some may argue that using final in general whenever possible will speed things up but that's not the case in recent JVMs.

Two advantages that I see are listed :
1 Marking the method argument as final prevents reassignment of the argument inside the method
From you example
public String changeTimezone(final Timestamp stamp, final Timezone fTz,
final Timezone toTz){
// THIS WILL CAUSE COMPILATION ERROR as fTz is marked as final argument
fTz = Calendar.getInstance().getTimeZone();
return ..
}
In a complicated method marking the arguments as final will help in accidental interpretation of these arguments as methods local variables and reassigning as compiler will flag these cases as shown in the example.
2 Passing the argument to an anonymous inner class
As a formal method parameter is a local variable, you can access them from inner anonymous classes only if they are declared as final.

- In the past (before Java 8 :-) )
Explit use of "final" keyword affected accessibility of the method variable for internal anonymous classes.
- In modern (Java 8+) lanaguage there is no need for such usage:
Java introduced "effectively final" variables. Local variables and method paramters are assummed final if the code does not imply changing of value of the variable. So if you see such keyword in Java8+ you can assume it is unecessary. Introduction of "effectively final" makes us type less code when using lambdas.

Its just a construct in Java to help you define a contract and stick to it. A similar discussion here : http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?JavaFinalConsideredEvil
BTW - (as the twiki says), marking args as final is generally redundant if you are following good programming principles and hance done reassign / redefine the incoming argument reference.
In the worst case, if you do redefine the args reference, its not going to affect the actual value passed to the function - since only a reference was passed.

I'm speaking of marking variables and fields final in general - doesn't just apply to method arguments. (Marking methods/classes final is a whole different thing).
It's a favor to the readers/future maintainers of your code. Together with a sensible name of the variable, it's helpful and reassuring to the reader of your code to see/understand what the variables in question represent - and it's reassuring to the reader that whenever you see the variable in the same scope, the meaning stays the same, so (s)he doesn't have to scratch his head to always figure out what a variable means in every context. We've seen too many abuses of "re-use" of variables, that makes even a short code snippet hard to understand.

The final keyword prevents you from assigning a new value to the parameter. I would like to explain this with a simple example
Suppose we have a method
method1(){
Date dateOfBirth =new Date("1/1/2009");
method2(dateOfBirth);
method3(dateOfBirth); }
public mehod2(Date dateOfBirth) {
....
....
....
}
public mehod2(Date dateOfBirth) {
....
....
....
}
In the above case if the "dateOfBirth" is assigned new value in method2 than this would result in the wrong output from method3. As the value that is being passed to method3 is not what it was before being passed to method2. So to avoid this final keyword is used for parameters.
And this is also one of the Java Coding Best Practices.

Declaring variable as final makes to code more efficient? [duplicate]

I've found a couple of references (for example) that suggest using final as much as possible and I'm wondering how important that is. This is mainly in the the context of method parameters and local variables, not final methods or classes. For constants, it makes obvious sense.
On one hand, the compiler can make some optimizations and it makes the programmer's intent clearer. On the other hand, it adds verbosity and the optimizations may be trivial.
Is it something I should make an effort to remember?

Obsess over:
Final fields - Marking fields as final forces them to be set by end of construction, making that field reference immutable. This allows safe publication of fields and can avoid the need for synchronization on later reads. (Note that for an object reference, only the field reference is immutable - things that object reference refers to can still change and that affects the immutability.)
Final static fields - Although I use enums now for many of the cases where I used to use static final fields.
Consider but use judiciously:
Final classes - Framework/API design is the only case where I consider it.
Final methods - Basically same as final classes. If you're using template method patterns like crazy and marking stuff final, you're probably relying too much on inheritance and not enough on delegation.
Ignore unless feeling anal:
Method parameters and local variables - I RARELY do this largely because I'm lazy and I find it clutters the code. I will fully admit that marking parameters and local variables that I'm not going to modify is "righter". I wish it was the default. But it isn't and I find the code more difficult to understand with finals all over. If I'm in someone else's code, I'm not going to pull them out but if I'm writing new code I won't put them in. One exception is the case where you have to mark something final so you can access it from within an anonymous inner class.
Edit: note that one use case where final local variables are actually very useful as mentioned by #adam-gent is when value gets assigned to the var in the if/else branches.

Is it something I should make an effort to remember to do?
No, if you are using Eclipse, because you can configure a Save Action to automatically add these final modifiers for you. Then you get the benefits for less effort.

I use final all the time to make Java more expression based. See Java's conditions (if,else,switch) are not expression based which I have always hated especially if your used to functional programming (ie ML, Scala or Lisp).
Thus you should try to always (IMHO) use final variables when using conditions.
Let me give you an example:
final String name;
switch(pluginType) {
case CANDIDATE_EXPORT:
name = "Candidate Stuff";
break;
case JOB_POSTING_IMPORT:
name = "Blah";
break;
default:
throw new IllegalStateException();
}
Now If add another case statement and do not set name the compiler will fail. The compiler will also fail if you do not break on every case (that you set the variable). This allows you to make Java very similar to Lisp's let expressions and makes it so your code is not massively indented (because of lexical scoping variables).
And as #Recurse noted (but apparently -1 me) you can do the preceding with out making String name final to get the compiler error (which I never said you couldn't) but you could easily make the compiler error go away setting name after the switch statement which throws away the expression semantics or worse forgetting to break which you cannot cause an error (despite what #Recurse says) without using final:
String name;
switch(pluginType) {
case CANDIDATE_EXPORT:
name = "Candidate Stuff";
//break; whoops forgot break..
//this will cause a compile error for final ;P #Recurse
case JOB_POSTING_IMPORT:
name = "Blah";
break;
}
// code, code, code
// Below is not possible with final
name = "Whoops bug";
Because of the bug setting name (besides forgetting to break which also another bug) I can now accidentally do this:
String name;
switch(pluginType) {
case CANDIDATE_EXPORT:
name = "Candidate Stuff";
break;
//should have handled all the cases for pluginType
}
// code, code, code
// Below is not possible with final
name = "Whoops bug";
The final variable forces a single evaluation of what name should be. Similar to how a function that has a return value must always return a value (ignoring exceptions) the name switch block will have to resolve name and thus bound to that switch block which makes refactoring chunks of code easier (ie Eclipe refactor: extract method).
The above in OCaml:
type plugin = CandidateExport | JobPostingImport
let p = CandidateExport
let name = match p with
| CandidateExport -> "Candidate Stuff"
| JobPostingImport -> "Blah" ;;
The match ... with ... evaluates like a function ie expression. Notice how it looks like our switch statement.
Here is an example in Scheme (Racket or Chicken):
(define name
(match b
['CandidateExport "Candidate Stuff"]
['JobPostingImport "Blah"]))

The development-time benefits of "final" are at least as significant as the run-time benefits. It tells future editors of the code something about your intentions.
Marking a class "final" indicates that you've not made an effort during design or implementation of the class to handle extension gracefully. If the readers can make changes to the class, and want to remove the "final" modifier, they can do so at their own risk. It's up to them to make sure the class will handle extension well.
Marking a variable "final" (and assigning it in the constructor) is useful with dependency injection. It indicates the "collaborator" nature of the variable.
Marking a method "final" is useful in abstract classes. It clearly delineates where the extension points are.

Well, this all depends on your style... if you LIKE seeing the final when you won't be modifying the variable, then use it. If you DON'T LIKE seeing it... then leave it out.
I personally like as little verbosity as possible, so I tend to avoid using extra keywords that aren't really necessary.
I prefer dynamic languages though, so it's probably no surprise I like to avoid verbosity.
So, I would say just pick the direction you are leaning towards and just go with it (whatever the case, try to be consistent).
As a side note, I have worked on projects that both use and don't use such a pattern, and I have seen no difference in the amount of bugs or errors... I don't think it is a pattern that will hugely improve your bug count or anything, but again it is style, and if you like expressing the intent that you won't modify it, then go ahead and use it.

I've found marking method parameters and locals as final is useful as a refactoring aid when the method in question is an incomprehensible mess several pages long. Sprinkle final liberally, see what "cannot assign to final variable" errors the compiler (or your IDE) throws up, and you just might discover why the variable called "data" ends up null even though several (out of date) comments swear that can't happen.
Then you can fix some of the errors by replacing the reused variables with new variables declared closer to the point of use. Then you find you can wrap whole parts of the method in scoping braces, and suddenly you're one IDE keypress away from "Extract Method" and your monster just got more comprehensible.
If your method is not already an unmaintainable wreck, I guess there might be value in making stuff final to discourage people from turning it into said wreck; but if it's a short method (see: not unmaintainable) then you risk adding a lot of verbosity. In particular, Java function signatures are hard enough to fit into 80 characters as it is without adding six more per argument!

It is useful in parameters to avoid change the parameter value by accident and introduce a subtle bug. I use to ignore this recommendation but after spending some 4 hrs. in a horrible method ( with hundreds of lines of code and multiple fors, nested ifs and all sort of bad practices ) I would recommend you to do it.
public int processSomethingCritical( final int x, final int y ){
// hundreds of lines here
// for loop here...
int x2 = 0;
x++; // bug aarrgg...
// hundreds of lines there
// if( x == 0 ) { ...
}
Of course in a perfect world this wouldn't happen, but.. well.. sometimes you have to support others code. :(

If you are writing a application that someone will have to read the code after, say, 1 year, then yes, use final on variable that should not be modified all the time. By doing this, your code will be more "self-documenting" and you also reduce the chance for other developers to do silly things like using a local constant as a local temporary variable.
If you're writing some throwaway code, then, nah, don't bother to identify all the constant and make them final.

I will use final as much as I can. Doing so will flag if you unintentionally change the field. I also set Method parameters to final. Doing so I have caught several bug from code I have taken over when they try to 'set' a parameter forgetting Java passes by value.

It's not clear from the question whether this is obvious, but making a method parameter final affects only the body of the method. It does NOT convey any interesting information about the method's intentions to the invoker. The object being passed in can still be mutated within the method (finals are not consts), and the scope of the variable is within the method.
To answer your precise question, I wouldn't bother making an instance or local variable (including method parameters) final unless the code required it (e.g. the variable is referenced from an inner class), or to clarify some really complicated logic.
For instance variables, I would make them final if they are logically constants.

There are many uses for the variable final. Here are just a few
Final Constants
public static class CircleToolsBetter {
public final static double PI = 3.141;
public double getCircleArea(final double radius) {
return (Math.pow(radius, 2) * PI);
}
}
This can be used then for other parts of your codes, or accessed by other classes, that way if you would ever change the value you wouldn't have to change them one by one.
Final Variables
public static String someMethod(final String environmentKey) {
final String key = "env." + environmentKey;
System.out.println("Key is: " + key);
return (System.getProperty(key));
}
}
In this class, you build a scoped final variable that adds a prefix to the parameter environmentKey. In this case, the final variable is final only within the execution scope, which is different at each execution of the method. Each time the method is entered, the final is reconstructed. As soon as it is constructed, it cannot be changed during the scope of the method execution. This allows you to fix a variable in a method for the duration of the method. see below:
public class FinalVariables {
public final static void main(final String[] args) {
System.out.println("Note how the key variable is changed.");
someMethod("JAVA_HOME");
someMethod("ANT_HOME");
}
}
Final Constants
public double equation2Better(final double inputValue) {
final double K = 1.414;
final double X = 45.0;
double result = (((Math.pow(inputValue, 3.0d) * K) + X) * M);
double powInputValue = 0;
if (result > 360) {
powInputValue = X * Math.sin(result);
} else {
inputValue = K * Math.sin(result); // <= Compiler error
}
These are especially useful when you have really long lines of codes, and it will generate compiler error so you don't run in to logic/business error when someone accidentally changes variables that shouldn't be changed.
Final Collections
Different case when we are talking about Collections, you need to set them as an unmodifiable.
public final static Set VALID_COLORS;
static {
Set temp = new HashSet( );
temp.add(Color.red);
temp.add(Color.orange);
temp.add(Color.yellow);
temp.add(Color.green);
temp.add(Color.blue);
temp.add(Color.decode("#4B0082")); // indigo
temp.add(Color.decode("#8A2BE2")); // violet
VALID_COLORS = Collections.unmodifiableSet(temp);
}
otherwise, if you don't set it as unmodifiable:
Set colors = Rainbow.VALID_COLORS;
colors.add(Color.black); // <= logic error but allowed by compiler
Final Classes and Final Methods cannot be extended or overwritten respectively.
EDIT:TO ADDRESS THE FINAL CLASS PROBLEM REGARDING ENCAPSULATION:
There are two ways to make a class final. The first is to use the keyword final in the class declaration:
public final class SomeClass {
// . . . Class contents
}
The second way to make a class final is to declare all of its constructors as private:
public class SomeClass {
public final static SOME_INSTANCE = new SomeClass(5);
private SomeClass(final int value) {
}
Marking it final saves you the trouble if finding out that it is actual a final, to demonstrate look at this Test class. looks public at first glance.
public class Test{
private Test(Class beanClass, Class stopClass, int flags)
throws Exception{
// . . . snip . . .
}
}
Unfortunately, since the only constructor of the class is private, it is impossible to extend this class. In the case of the Test class, there is no reason that the class should be final. The Test class is a good example of how implicit final classes can cause problems.
So you should mark it final when you implicitly make a class final by making it's constructor private.

Somewhat of a trade-off as you mention, but I prefer explicit use of something over implicit use. This will help remove some ambiguity for future maintainers of code - even if it is just you.

If you have inner (anonymous) classes, and the method needs to access variable of the containing method, you need to have that variable as final.
Other than that, what you've said is right.

Use final keyword for a variable if you are making that variable as immutable
By declaring the variable as final, it aids developers to rule out possible modification issues of variables in highly multi-threaded environment.
With java 8 release, we have one more concept called "effectively final variable". A non-final variable can heave as final variable.
local variables referenced from a lambda expression must be final or effectively final
A variable is considered effective final if it is not modified after initialization in the local block. This means you can now use the local variable without final keyword inside an anonymous class or lambda expression, provided they must be effectively final.
Till Java 7, you cannot use a non-final local variable inside an anonymous class, but from Java 8 you can
Have a look at this article

First of all, the final keyword is used to make a variable constant. Constant means it does not change. For example:
final int CM_PER_INCH = 2.54;
You would declare the variable final because a centimeter per inch does not change.
If you try to override a final value, the variable is what it was declared first. For example:
final String helloworld = "Hello World";
helloworld = "A String"; //helloworld still equals "Hello World"
There is a compile error that is something like:
local variable is accessed from inner class, must be declared final
If your variable cannot be declared final or if you don't want to declare it final try this:
final String[] helloworld = new String[1];
helloworld[0] = "Hello World!";
System.out.println(helloworld[0]);
helloworld[0] = "A String";
System.out.println(helloworld[0]);
This will print:
Hello World!
A String

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.