a quick question about String

[Simon Roberts]

I think there are two things at stake here, one is that as I understand it,
"new means new", in every case. This is at least partly why the
constructors on soon-to-be value objects are deprecated; they become
meaningless. The other is that if the presumption is that we should
always intern new Strings, I must disagree. Pooling takes time and memory
to manage, and if there are very few duplicates, it's a waste of both. I
believe it should be up to the programmer to decide if this is appropriate
in their situation. Of course, the GC system seems to be capable of
stepping in in some incarnations, which adds something of a counterexample,
but that is, if I recall, configurable.


On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 2:53 PM Xeno Amess <xenoamess at gmail.com> wrote:

> never should，as Object can be use as lock.
>
> XenoAmess
> ________________________________
> From: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net> on behalf of
> Bernd Eckenfels <ecki at zusammenkunft.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 5:51:55 AM
> To: alan Snyder <fishgarage at cbfiddle.com>; core-libs-dev <
> core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: a quick question about String
>
> new String() always creates a new instance.
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> ________________________________
> Von: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net> im Auftrag von
> Alan Snyder <javalists at cbfiddle.com>
> Gesendet: Thursday, December 23, 2021 6:59:18 PM
> An: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Betreff: a quick question about String
>
> Do the public constructors of String actually do what their documentation
> says (allocate a new instance), or is there some kind of compiler magic
> that might avoid allocation?
>
>

-- 
Simon Roberts
(303) 249 3613