Incident Report 9079511: Java Language Enhancement: Disallow access to static members via object references

[Brian Goetz]

Indeed, this "feature" is a terrible feature.  In addition to being 
bug-bait, it has interfered with the design of several language 
features.  It is an example of how trying to be too helpful is actually 
unhelpful.

However, the significant part of the request is not "here's a change 
that I think is beneficial, that can be evaluated on the merits"; it is 
"here is a language change that will break existing programs, that has 
to be evaluated on whether the incompatibility is justified."  While the 
bar for the former is very high, the bar for the latter is 
astronomically high.

On 1/23/2026 7:56 AM, Tagir Valeev wrote:
> Hello!
>
> By the way, this "feature" complicates the static analysis, so I'd 
> like if we get rid of it. There's even a bug in IntelliJ IDEA, which I 
> don't want to fix. Try the following class:
>
> class Test {
>   static void test() {
>     System.out.println("Static");
>   }
>
>   static void process(Test test) {
>     test.test();
>   }
>
>   public static void main(String[] args) {
>     process(null);
>   }
> }
>
> There's a false-positive warning at `process(null)`: Passing 'null' 
> argument to parameter annotated as @NotNull, despite the code runs 
> perfectly. IntelliJ IDEA assumes that if you dereference the `test` 
> variable via `test.test()` call, then `test` must not be null, so 
> passing `null` to the `process` method should be disallowed. At this 
> stage of analysis, we cannot spend time on resolving the `test()` call 
> and checking whether it's static or not, so we just assume that nobody 
> in their sane mind calls static methods on instance qualifiers.
>
> By the way, there's a warning already. It's just turned off by default.
>
> C:\Temp>javac.exe -Xlint:static Test.java
> Test.java:7: warning: [static] static method should be qualified by 
> type name, Test, instead of by an expression
>     test.test();
>         ^
> 1 warning
>
> With best regards,
> Tagir Valeev.
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 1:43 PM Amazing Code 
> <amazingcodewithus at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I am writing to propose a language enhancement regarding the
>     handling of static member access in Java.
>
>
>         *Issue*
>
>     Java currently permits static fields and methods to be accessed
>     through object references, despite static members belonging
>     strictly to the class. This behavior is often misleading and can
>     create confusion, especially in large codebases or among
>     less-experienced developers.
>
>     Example:
>
>     |MyClass obj = new MyClass(); obj.staticMethod(); // Currently
>     allowed, but confusing |
>
>
>         *Proposed Enhancement*
>
>     I request consideration of a change that *disallows access to
>     static members via object references*, enforcing access
>     exclusively through the class name. This would convert the current
>     warning into a *compile-time error*.
>
>
>         *Rationale*
>
>      *
>
>         Prevents misconceptions about instance vs. class-level behavior
>
>      *
>
>         Improves code clarity and consistency
>
>      *
>
>         Reduces maintenance complexity in enterprise applications
>
>      *
>
>         Encourages best practices already recommended by the community
>
>
>         *Suggested Requirements*
>
>     1.
>
>         Compiler should produce an error when static members are
>         accessed through object references.
>
>     2.
>
>         Error messages should explicitly guide developers to use
>         class-based access.
>
>     3.
>
>         Rules should apply to static fields, static methods, and
>         static nested types.
>
>     4.
>
>         Optionally, provide a compiler flag for backward compatibility
>         during migration.
>
>
>         *Conclusion*
>
>     Restricting object-based access to static members would strengthen
>     language clarity and help eliminate a common source of
>     misunderstanding. I kindly request your consideration of this
>     enhancement for future Java releases.
>
>     Thank you for your time and continued work on the Java platform.
>
>     Sincerely,
>     *Kamlesh Kohli*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20260123/84024155/attachment.htm>