为什么他们决定在Java和。net(和其他一些语言)中使字符串不可变?为什么不让它变呢?


当前回答

这是一种权衡。字符串进入String池,当您创建多个相同的字符串时,它们共享相同的内存。设计人员认为这种节省内存的技术在一般情况下会很好地工作,因为程序倾向于反复处理相同的字符串。

缺点是连接产生了许多额外的字符串,这些字符串只是过渡性的,只是垃圾,实际上会损害内存性能。在这些情况下,可以使用StringBuffer和StringBuilder(在Java中,。net中也有StringBuilder)来保存内存。

其他回答

一个因素是,如果字符串是可变的,那么存储字符串的对象必须小心地存储副本,以免它们的内部数据在没有通知的情况下发生变化。鉴于字符串是一种相当基本的类型,就像数字一样,即使它们是通过引用传递的,也可以把它们当作是按值传递的,这是很好的(这也有助于节省内存)。

至少有两个原因。

第一-安全http://www.javafaq.nu/java-article1060.html

The main reason why String made immutable was security. Look at this example: We have a file open method with login check. We pass a String to this method to process authentication which is necessary before the call will be passed to OS. If String was mutable it was possible somehow to modify its content after the authentication check before OS gets request from program then it is possible to request any file. So if you have a right to open text file in user directory but then on the fly when somehow you manage to change the file name you can request to open "passwd" file or any other. Then a file can be modified and it will be possible to login directly to OS.

第二-内存效率http://hikrish.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-string-class-is-immutable.html

JVM internally maintains the "String Pool". To achive the memory efficiency, JVM will refer the String object from pool. It will not create the new String objects. So, whenever you create a new string literal, JVM will check in the pool whether it already exists or not. If already present in the pool, just give the reference to the same object or create the new object in the pool. There will be many references point to the same String objects, if someone changes the value, it will affect all the references. So, sun decided to make it immutable.

不可变性与安全性并没有那么紧密的联系。为此,至少在。net中,你得到了SecureString类。

稍后编辑:在Java中,你会发现GuardedString,一个类似的实现。

不变性很好。参见有效的Java。如果每次传递String时都必须复制它,那么这将是大量容易出错的代码。您还会混淆哪些修改会影响哪些引用。同样地,Integer必须是不可变的才能像int一样,string必须是不可变的才能像原语一样。在c++中,按值传递字符串是这样做的,源代码中没有明确提到。

我知道这是个意外,但是… 它们真的是不可变的吗? 考虑以下几点。

public static unsafe void MutableReplaceIndex(string s, char c, int i)
{
    fixed (char* ptr = s)
    {
        *((char*)(ptr + i)) = c;
    }
}

...

string s = "abc";
MutableReplaceIndex(s, '1', 0);
MutableReplaceIndex(s, '2', 1);
MutableReplaceIndex(s, '3', 2);
Console.WriteLine(s); // Prints 1 2 3

你甚至可以让它成为一个扩展方法。

public static class Extensions
{
    public static unsafe void MutableReplaceIndex(this string s, char c, int i)
    {
        fixed (char* ptr = s)
        {
            *((char*)(ptr + i)) = c;
        }
    }
}

是什么使下面的工作

s.MutableReplaceIndex('1', 0);
s.MutableReplaceIndex('2', 1);
s.MutableReplaceIndex('3', 2);

Conclusion: They're in an immutable state which is known by the compiler. Of couse the above only applies to .NET strings as Java doesn't have pointers. However a string can be entirely mutable using pointers in C#. It's not how pointers are intended to be used, has practical usage or is safely used; it's however possible, thus bending the whole "mutable" rule. You can normally not modify an index directly of a string and this is the only way. There is a way that this could be prevented by disallowing pointer instances of strings or making a copy when a string is pointed to, but neither is done, which makes strings in C# not entirely immutable.