Static fields in specialized classes

[Daniel Latrémolière]

> In light of this, our conclusion is that the schism between values and 
> references is real, and what is needed is to treat it in a less ad-hoc 
> way, but not make attempts to hide it, since such attempts usually 
> fail (and when they do, the failures are even more painful.)

When I see String/StringBuffer/StringBuilder or 
int/Integer/AtomicInteger, I am concerned by the number of needed 
schisms and the excessive use of similar but different absolute names 
for similar notions. Can you say which schisms are real in the 
characteristics of objects, like:

- pass by reference or by value
- has identity or not
- mutability or not
- thread-safety or not
- possible others [1].

Is it needed by schisms to use different absolute names or is type 
needing a definition by combining an unique absolute name, like 
java.lang.Integer with needed characteristics, using something similar 
to JSR 308. By example, can int be redesigned as a default shortcut of 
something like @IdentityLess Integer (but with annotation modifying 
behaviour, contrary to current annotations).

[1]: In the following link, you can find some others possible generic 
characteristics of a type, like: nullness, interning, tainting, units, etc.
http://types.cs.washington.edu/checker-framework/current/checker-framework-manual.html

Thanks.