We Keep Coding

int vs Integer vs a user made class to achieve effective pass by reference behavior in Java

Let's say you have a class of object with three
integer fields that you want to possibly change, all in the same way, with one method.
Let's keep it simple and say all that the method does is add 1 to the parameter passed to it.
That is to say, the desired behavior is that by the time the method has completed, the relevant field has increased by 1.
This is impossible to achieve in Java using the primitive type "int" for those fields.
I know about how Java is "always" pass by value, and not pass by reference,
- and - i've heard whisperings on the internet that this is one reason that the Integer class exists, along with other object "wrapper" classes
for ordinarily primitive types such as int and double.
Sending an object as an argument to a method should, in theory, provide a way to [effectively, if not technically] pass by reference, since the value that is passed, is supposedly the value of the reference to the object.
Very tricky. BUT - and this is where my annoyance comes in - I've tried achieving this very simple task by passing an Integer argument instead of an
int, and the desired behavior was still not accomplished. 1 was not added to the relevant field.
And yet, when I made my very own object, which consisted of just one field, an int value, and passed an instance of this object as an argument
to an appropriate method which would simply add 1 to the passed parameter, the desired behavior was in fact accomplished. 1 was added to the relevant field.
So the questions orbiting around this query are - Is it really going to be necessary to craft my own homemade class just to carry a simple integer value
every time I want to achieve this desired behavior? Can the existing tool provided by Java, Integer, really not perform this simple task?
Instead of having one nice, neat method to handle all three of the hypothetical integer fields i mentioned in the beginning, I felt compelled (in a separate, similar project that ultimately provoked this line of thinking) to make a separate method corresponding to each of the three fields, with essentially the same exact code in each one. This seems very inefficient.
It may not seem like a big deal, on the surface, to write three similar methods instead of one, but to clarify why this dismays me - imagine instead of an object with three integer fields as I stated, there are say, i don't know, four thousand. It would be so much better to write just one thing to perform the same kind of behavior, instead of copying and pasting (and changing whatever little bits necessary) four thousand times.
So I suppose the ultimate question is,
Why doesn't Integer function in a reasonable way? What's the point of wrapping a primitive in an Object at all, if it doesn't even help perform something this simple? Am I missing something simple about how to get Integer to function in the desired way? (Hopefully so) The answer seems close yet infuriatingly out of reach since "RInteger" produces the desired behavior, yet "Integer" doesn't.
The entire source code I used while trying to figure out how to construct this painstaking question is below.
package r9mp;
import javax.swing.SwingUtilities;
public class RefTest2 {
//[main m]
public static void main(String[] args){
SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable(){
public void run(){
new RefTest2();
}
});
}
//[fields]
int i;
Integer I;
RInteger RI;
//[constr]
public RefTest2(){
intTest();
IntegerTest();
RIntegerTest();
display();
}
//[methods]
private void intTest(){
i = 100;
intMethod(i);
}
private void IntegerTest(){
I = 100; //boxing? auto?
IntegerMethod(I);
I = 100; //just in case.
IntegerMethod2(I);
}
private void RIntegerTest(){
RI = new RInteger(100);
RIntegerMethod(RI);
}
private void intMethod(int ipar){
ipar = ipar + 1;//no change. expected.
}
private void IntegerMethod(Integer IPar){
IPar = IPar + 1;//no change. frustrating.
pln("From inside IntegerMethod: IPar = " + IPar );
pln("From inside IntegerMethod: I = " + I );
}
private void IntegerMethod2(Integer IPar){
IPar = new Integer(IPar+1);//still no change. there are no set methods for Integer, or I'd try them.
}
private void RIntegerMethod(RInteger riPar){
riPar.value = riPar.value + 1;
}
private void display(){
pln(
"Display... \n" +
"i: " + i + "\n" +
"I: " + I + "\n" +
"RI: " + RI + "\n" +
"--------"
);
}
private void pln(){
pln("");
}
private void pln(String s){
System.out.println(s);
}
//[internal class]
private class RInteger{
int value;
public RInteger(int v){
value = v;
}
public String toString(){
return ""+value;
}
}
}
And, here is the output...

How about one method for primitives and their wrappers?
private int incInteger(int value)
{
return value + 1;
}
and call for it:
int intVal = 100;
intVal = incInteger(intVal);
Integer integerVal = 200;
integerVal = incInteger(integerVal);

First of all, you need to read up on immutability to find out why it is a very good thing to have. There even exist entire languages (functional, mostly) that capitalize on it.
Once you have read about that, then read Eric Lippert's series of articles on immutability. Start here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ericlippert/2007/11/13/immutability-in-c-part-one-kinds-of-immutability/ Mind = blown.
But to give you a quick hint as to why primitive wrappers like Integer are immutable, let me just say that these classes are often used as keys in Hash Maps, and a key must be immutable, so that its hashCode will never change, otherwise the hash map will fail with very difficult to track down behaviour. Mutable keys in hashmaps are nasty bugs.
You can achieve what you want with a class of your own devise which plays the role of a reference, or by simply passing an array and modifying the element at array[0].
My personal preferences are as follows:
I would try to do as much as possible with return values.
When return values are inapplicable, (as the case is with invokeLater,) then inner/nested/anonymous classes that have access to the fields of the enclosing class are my next preference.
When that's not an option either, then special classes crafted precisely for the application at hand are my next option. (MyMutableNumberWrapper.)
And when I just want something quick and dirty, then general-purpose classes like Ref<T> (or even single-element arrays) would be my final option.

Return two Strings from method

I'm a beginner in Java programming, and I'm trying to make a voting machine program, where you can vote for Republicans or Democrats. My question is, how can I edit my method so I would be able to return two strings with two distinct values?
For example, look at my code all the way in the bottom. It's wrong, but I wanted the tester to be able to print out Democrats: (some number) and Republicans: (some number) in one method. How can I do that?
import java.lang.String;
public class VotingMachine1 {
private double Democrats;
private double Republicans;
public VotingMachine1() {
Democrats = 0;
Republicans = 0;
}
public void voteRepublican() {
Republicans = Republicans + 1;
}
public void voteDemocrat() {
Democrats = Democrats + 1;
}
public void clearMachineState() {
Republicans = 0;
Democrats = 0;
}
//this is where I'm having difficulties. I know its wrong
public double getTallies() {
System.out.println("Democrats: ", return Democrats);
System.out.println("Republicans: ", return Republicans);
}
}

No return is necessary there, since you aren't leaving a function. To do what you seem to want to do, just replace that last method with the following:
public void getTallies()
{
System.out.println("Democrats: " + Double.toString(Democrats));
System.out.println("Republicans: " + Double.toString(Republicans));
}
Also, since your votecounts should only ever be integers, there's no reason to declare them as doubles instead of ints.

What you are looking for here is a format string. A format string is used when you know what your output should look like, and only have a few "holes" where unknown data should be filled in. To output your data using format strings, you would use the System.out.format(String, Object...) method:
System.out.format("Democrats: %f\n", Democrats);
System.out.format("Republicans: %f\n", Republicans);
In this case, the %f indicates that a floating-point number (since your variables are declared as double) will be printed instead of the %f. However, you may wish to consider declaring them as int (or long) instead, in which case you would use %d instead of %f in the format strings.
Finally, you ought to change your getTallies() method to return void instead of double, as you are printing the values, not returning them.

Your code and your description are so contradictory, it is not clear that you even know what you are trying to do. I believe that this is the real root of your problems.
Here goes:
public double getTallies()
{
System.out.println("Democrats: ", return Democrats);
System.out.println("Republicans: ", return Republicans);
}
First, your question says that you want to "return two strings with two values" ... but you have declared the method as returning one double.
Next, your code is printing values ... not returning them.
You've also made some major mistakes at the syntactic level, largely (I believe) because you are trying to do contradictory things:
return Republicans is not a valid Java expression, so you can't use it as a argument to the println method.
The println method can't be called with two arguments, as your code is trying to do. There is a zero argument version and a number of one argument overloads ... but no overloads with two or more arguments.
Basically, you need to start by making up your mind about what this method is supposed to do. Is it supposed to:
return the tallies (as two doubles)?
return a string representing the two tallies?
return nothing ... and output the two tallies to standard output?
do something else?
Once you've made up your mind:
code the method to do what you've decided it should do, and
chose a method name that correctly reflects what it is supposed to do. Hint: a method that starts with get is conventionally a "getter" that returns the attribute or attributes themselves ... not a String rendering.
double is a bad choice of type for a vote count too:
You cannot have a fractional vote.
You want to represent vote counts precisely and floating point types (like double) are not precise. (Or at least, not in the sense that you require.)
When you attempt to format or output a double, the resulting character string is likely to include a pesky decimal point ... or worse.
You should use int or long instead of double.
Finally, this is a serious Java style violation, and should get you a significant penalty if your marker is paying attention.
private double Democrats;
private double Republicans;
Variable names in Java should start with a LOWER CASE letter.

A few more random comments:
import java.lang.String; is superfluous as all classes in package java.lang are automatically imported in every Java source file.
Votes can not be fractional. People can't vote 0.75 candidate A, and 0.25 candidate B. If you use integer datatypes (int or long), you will be reflecting this fact better. Also, you will be saving yourself a lot of headache when you start obtaining results like 379857.999999. This is because floating point types have a better range, but worse precision (especially noticeable when working with pure integers).
According to Java usual naming conventions, variable names should start with a lowecase letter.
A better name for function getTallies is printTallies.
For output purposes, it's much better to use string formatting than concatenation. Some advantages are: multiple formats supported, ease of use, and internationalization.
Putting all together:
private int democratVotes;
private int republicanVotes;
public void printTallies() {
System.out.format("Democrats: %,d%n",democratVotes);
System.out.format("Republicans: %,d%n",republicanVotes);
}
In this particular case, votes will be printed with thousand separation (ex: 3,345,623 instead of 3345623). Check Java's Formatting Numeric Print Output tutorial.
Thinking better about it, there are some alternatives where getTallies would effectively be returning some form of value:
1) Make it to return a String with both tallies. It would be hard and inefficient to separate the tallies later, though.
public String getTallies() {
return "Democrats: %,d votes. Republicans: %,d votes.%n".format(democratVotes,republicanVotes);
}
2) Make it to return an array.
public int[] getTallies() {
return new int[2]{ democratVotes, republicanVotes };
}
public int[] getTallies1() { // Same as getTallies, but written step by step.
int[] result= new int[2] ;
result[0]= democratVotes ;
result[1]= republicanVotes ;
return result ;
}
3) Make it to return a class.
public VotingMachineResults getTallies() {
return VotingMachineResults(democratVotes,republicanVotes) ;
}
public static class VotingMachineResults {
private int democratVotes;
private int republicanVotes;
public VotingMachineResults(democratVotes,republicanVotes) {
this.democratVotes= democratVotes ; // `this` required to disambiguate field democratVotes from parameter democratVotes.
this.republicanVotes= republicanVotes ;
}
public int getDemocratVotes() {
return democratVotes ;
}
public int getRepublicanVotes() {
return republicanVotes ;
}
}
As you can see, this class is very similar to VotingMachine1, but it does not accept internal state changes. It is a "value" class.

In Java, you concatenate Strings with the + operator. Proper syntax for what you were trying to do looks like this:
System.out.println("Democrats: " + Democrats);
System.out.println("Republicans: " + Republicans);
A return statement is only used when you want to return some object or value to a method that called your current method. It is not appropriate in this place since you're only passing a value to another method (println()).
ALSO, you need to fix your getTallies() method. Make it return void instead of double since you aren't returning anything.

Here's something completely different: why not override toString()?
Presumably, any instance of VotingMachine1 will apply for all votes that you care about for that instance. That is to say, you don't create a new instance of a VotingMachine1 every time someone casts a vote.
So, what you can do is override the toString() method. We'll also use String.format() to handle the numerical values.
#Override
public String toString() {
// assumes that Democrats and Republicans are declared as int
// since it's pointless to indicate percentages of a vote
return String.format("Democrats: %d\nRepublicans: %d", Democrats, Republicans);
}
Now, whenever you vote, you can use the toString() method to get the information (which is called whenever one does System.out.println(object).
VotingMachine1 voter = new VotingMachine1();
voter.voteDemocrat();
voter.voteRepublican();
System.out.println(voter);
/* This prints:
Democrats: 1
Republicans: 1
*/

A less specific answer to your question would be to return an Object called (say) Votes
public class Vote {
int democratVotes
int republicanVotes
}
and then make your VotingMachine class simply return an instance of this object (suitably changed to make it immutable).
On my project we have created a generic version of this called a Tuple that returns a pair of values in a single object - it has an overloaded toString method for easy printing.

you can return an array with [0] and [1] as key and devide it on the basis of your need..
like
returnArray[0]="first string";
returnArray[1]="second string";
and use it ur way...

How does System.out.print() work?

I have worked with Java for a quite a long time, and I was wondering how the function System.out.print() works.
Here is my doubt:
Being a function, it has a declaration somewhere in the io package. But how did Java developers do that, since this function can take in any number of arguments and any argument types no matter how they are arranged? e.g:
System.out.print("Hello World");
System.out.print("My name is" + foo);
System.out.print("Sum of " + a + "and " + b + "is " + c);
System.out.print("Total USD is " + usd);
No matter what is the datatype of variables a, b, c, usd, foo or how they are passed, System.out.print() never throws an error.
For me, I have never worked on any project where the requirement was like this. Provided, if I get a requirement like this, I really don't know how to solve it.
Can anyone explain to me how it's done?

System.out is just an instance of PrintStream. You can check its JavaDoc. Its variability is based on method overloading (multiple methods with the same name, but with different parameters).
This print stream is sending its output to so called standard output.
In your question you mention a technique called variadic functions (or varargs). Unfortunately that is not supported by PrintStream#print, so you must be mistaking this with something else. However it is very easy to implement these in Java. Just check the documentation.
And if you are curious how Java knows how to concatenate non-string variables "foo" + 1 + true + myObj, it is mainly responsibility of a Java compiler.
When there is no variable involved in the concatenation, the compiler simply concatenates the string. When there is a variable involved, the concatenation is translated into StringBuilder#append chain. There is no concatenation instruction in the resulting byte code; i.e. the + operator (when talking about string concatenation) is resolved during the compilation.
All types in Java can be converted to string (int via methods in Integer class, boolean via methods in Boolean class, objects via their own #toString, ...). You can check StringBuilder's source code if you are interested.
UPDATE: I was curious myself and checked (using javap) what my example System.out.println("foo" + 1 + true + myObj) compiles into. The result:
System.out.println(new StringBuilder("foo1true").append(myObj).toString());

Even though it look as if System.put.print...() take a variable number of arguments it doesn't. If you look closely, the string is simply concatenated and you can do the same with any string. The only thing that happens is, that the objects you are passing in, are implicitily converted to a string by java calling the toString() method.
If you try to do this it will fail:
int i = 0;
String s = i;
System.out.println(s);
Reason is, because here the implicit conversion is not done.
However if you change it to
int i = 0;
String s = "" + i;
System.out.println(s);
It works and this is what happens when using System.put.print...() as well.
If you want to implement a variable number of arguments in java to mimimc something like C printf you can declare it like this:
public void t(String s, String ... args)
{
String val = args[1];
}
What happens here is that an array of Strings is passed in, with the length of the provided arguments. Here Java can do the type checking for you.
If you want truly a printf then you have to do it like this:
public void t(String s, Object ... args)
{
String val = args[1].toString();
}
Then would you have to cast or interpret the arguments accordingly.

It is a very sensitive point to understand how System.out.print works.
If the first element is String then plus(+) operator works as String concate operator. If the first element is integer plus(+) operator works as mathematical operator.
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println("String" + 8 + 8); //String88
System.out.println(8 + 8+ "String"); //16String
}

Evidently, the compiler was made in a confusing way although the compiler developers thought they added some smartness. The true smartness they should really add is to look entire argument and interpret + operator consistently. For example, System.out.println(1+2+"hello"+3+4); should output 3hello7 instead of 3hello34

I think you are confused with the printf(String format, Object... args) method. The first argument is the format string, which is mandatory, rest you can pass an arbitrary number of Objects.
There is no such overload for both the print() and println() methods.

Its all about Method Overloading.
There are individual methods for each data type in println() method
If you pass object :
Prints an Object and then terminate the line. This method calls at first String.valueOf(x) to get the printed object's string value, then behaves as though it invokes print(String) and then println().
If you pass Primitive type:
corresponding primitive type method calls
if you pass String :
corresponding println(String x) method calls

You can convert anything to a String as long as you choose what to print. The requirement was quite simple since Objet.toString() can return a default dumb string: package.classname + # + object number.
If your print method should return an XML or JSON serialization, the basic result of toString() wouldn't be acceptable. Even though the method succeed.
Here is a simple example to show that Java can be dumb
public class MockTest{
String field1;
String field2;
public MockTest(String field1,String field2){
this.field1=field1;
this.field2=field2;
}
}
System.out.println(new MockTest("a","b");
will print something package.Mocktest#3254487 ! Even though you only have two String members and this could be implemented to print
Mocktest#3254487{"field1":"a","field2":"b"}
(or pretty much how it appears in the debbuger)

#ikis, firstly as #Devolus said these are not multiple aruements passed to print(). Indeed all these arguments passed get
concatenated to form a single String. So print() does not teakes multiple arguements (a. k. a. var-args). Now the concept that remains to discuss is how print() prints any type of the arguement passed
to it.
To explain this - toString() is the secret:
System is a class, with a static field out, of type PrintStream. So you're calling the println(Object x) method of a
PrintStream.
It is implemented like this:
public void println(Object x) {
String s = String.valueOf(x);
synchronized (this) {
print(s);
newLine();
}
}
As wee see, it's calling the String.valueOf(Object) method. This is implemented as follows:
public static String valueOf(Object obj) {
return (obj == null) ? "null" : obj.toString();
}
And here you see, that toString() is called.
So whatever is returned from the toString() method of that class, same gets printed.
And as we know the toString() is in Object class and thus inherits a default iplementation from Object.
ex: Remember when we have a class whose toString() we override and then we pass that ref variable to print, what do you see printed? - It's what we return from the toString().

The scenarios that you have mentioned are not of overloading, you are just concatenating different variables with a String.
System.out.print("Hello World");
System.out.print("My name is" + foo);
System.out.print("Sum of " + a + "and " + b + "is " + c);
System.out.print("Total USD is " + usd);
in all of these cases, you are only calling print(String s) because when something is concatenated with a string it gets converted to a String by calling the toString() of that object, and primitives are directly concatenated.
However if you want to know of different signatures then yes print() is overloaded for various arguments.

Custom 'String' Class

I'm trying to figure out how java classes work.
When I create a StringBuilder:
StringBuilder testString = new StringBuilder("Hello World!);
If I want to, say, get the value that testSting holds a reference to, I can simply call it like: System.out.println(testString);
This is cool behavior, but I'm unsure how to replicate it in classes that I make.
For instance, if I were to try and re-implement my own version of StringBuilder, the approach I would take (as a beginner), would be this:
class MyBuilder {
char[] string;
public MyBuilder(String s) {
string = new char[s.length()];
string = s.toCharArray();
}
So, to make the string an array I had to store it in a data field of the class. But then, to access this in my code, I can't print it by simply calling the variable name. I would have to use .property syntax. Thus, to duplicate the above example, I would have to type System.out.println(testString.value); Which isn't nearly as pretty.
How do you make a class such that it behaves like String or StringBuilder and returns its value without manually accessing the data fields?

Implement a toString method.
toString is a method on Object, so every java object inherits one. The default implementation that you inherit is only useful for getting the class type, and for distinguishing one object from another; the format is: ClassName#HashCode. There are no details unique to your implementation.
In your own classes, to get the description that you want you'll need to override the toString method, so that in contexts where a String is expected, e.g. when you call System.out.println(myObject.toString());, your own format is used.
It's often a good idea to do this, for a more readable description of your object. You can always call super.toString to include the output from the default - ClassName#HashCode - in your own output.

You can override Object.toString() in your object MyBuilder. System.out.println calls on this method for every object used. For example here, you could use:
#Override
public String toString() {
return Arrays.toString(string);
}

Overwrite the toString-Method
private String value;
public MyClass(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String toString() {
return value;
}

When creating methods and passing objects as parameters, are they copied or referenced? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is Java pass by reference?
see example below... need java.io library to run...
public class BlankClass extends ConsoleProgram {
public void run() {
while(true) {
setFont("London-24");
String name = readLine("Type a name: ");
fixName(name);
/* I know that the way this is written doesn't make sense and that println(fixName(name))
* is the right way. However, I thought that when objects then the method is using the object
* (in this case a string) and not a copy of it. In other words, it is referenced.
* So if it is referenced why isn't it printing out Steven when I give it STEVEN.
*/
//println(fixName(name); this is removed to show the question.
println(name);
}
}
private String fixName(String name) {
char first = name.charAt(0);
first = Character.toUpperCase(first);
name = name.substring(1);
name = first + name.toLowerCase();
return name;
}
}

Java always passes parameters by value - but in the case of classes/objects, the value that's passed is a reference, not an object itself.
What the type involved, the value of the argument expression is copied as the initial value of the parameter. Changes to the parameter variable itself are not seen by the caller, whereas changes to the object that the reference refers to will be seen.
For example, using StringBuilder (which is a mutable type):
public void foo(StringBuilder builder)
{
builder = new StringBuilder("Change to builder");
}
public void bar(StringBuilder builder)
{
builder.append(" - appended");
}
Now:
StringBuilder x = new StringBuilder("Original value");
foo(x);
System.out.println(x); // Still prints "Original value"
StringBuilder y = new StringBuilder("Original value 2");
bar(y);
System.out.println(y); // Prints "Original value 2 - appended"
Note that when I say "the value of the argument expression", that is never an object - it's either a primitive value, or a reference.
I like to think of an analogy with houses. Suppose you have a piece of paper (a variable) with directions to a house written on it. You call a method and use that variable as the argument - that creates a new piece of paper (the parameter) with the same directions on. If the method crosses out the original directions and replaces them with some other ones, that doesn't change the first piece of paper. On the other hand, if the method follows the directions and then paints the house red, then you would see that change if you followed the directions on the first piece of paper.
EDIT: To explain your original code... no objects are being copied, but the value of name in run is being copied into fixName. You're then changing the value of the parameter in fixName when you write this:
name = name.substring(1);
You're changing it again when you write:
name = first + name.toLowerCase();
Neither of these have changed the value of name in the calling code, which is still referring to the original string.
You're then returning the new string reference here:
return name;
but your calling code is completely ignoring it, because you've just written:
fixName(name);
One way to demonstrate what's happened is to use the return value in a new variable:
String fixedName = fixName(name);
Then you could print out name (which would show the original string) and fixedName (which would show the new one).

you pass a reference, so you work with the same string, BUT you return another string, because String in java is immutable - every operation (such as subString) produce new string and if you want to perform many operations on string (such as substring, replace etc.) use a StringBuffer or StringBuilder

This does not really answer your question, but you should avoid assigning parameters (like 'name' in this case), it can be handy at times but it is generally considered a bad practice because it often leads to unreadable and hard to maintain code.
In your case the variable is both a parameter and a local variable.
In Eclipse there is a warning you can activate for this in
Preferences->Java->Compiler->Errors/Warnings->Code style->Parameter assignment
I would recommend to set the parameter 'name' final in order to enforce this.
Return another String that is based on your 'name' String and name it properly.
The goal is that anyone reading your code should be able to quickly understand what is going on by elimination (the function is private, it is static, the parameter is final...). This excludes a lot of side effects.
Search for the concept of 'pure functions' on the web. Make the method static so the person reading your code knows that there are no side effects on the instance.
Here is the new version:
private static String fixName(final String name) {
final char firstCharOfName = Character.toUpperCase(name.charAt(0));
final String fixedName = firstCharOfName + name.substring(1).toLowerCase();
return fixedName;
}