静态变量没有好坏之分。它们表示描述整个类而不是特定实例的属性。如果需要为某个类的所有实例设置一个计数器，则静态变量将是保存该值的合适位置。

当您尝试使用静态变量来保存与实例相关的值时，就会出现问题。

如果我必须在一个类中对一个函数进行10,000次调用，我会 很高兴使方法静态和使用直接 使用class.methodCall()来代替内存中10,000的混乱 类的实例，对吧?

您必须平衡将数据封装到具有状态的对象中的需求，以及简单地计算某些数据上的函数的结果的需求。

此外，静态减少了对代码其他部分的相互依赖。

封装也是如此。在大型应用程序中，静态方法往往会产生意大利面条式的代码，并且不容易进行重构或测试。

其他答案也为反对过度使用静态数据提供了很好的理由。

静态变量表示全局状态。这很难推理，也很难测试:如果我创建了一个对象的新实例，我就可以在测试中推理它的新状态。如果我使用使用静态变量的代码，它可以处于任何状态-任何东西都可以修改它。

我还可以继续讲很久，但更重要的概念是，事物的范围越窄，就越容易进行推理。我们擅长思考小事，但如果没有模块化，就很难推断出百万行系统的状态。顺便说一下，这适用于各种各样的东西——不仅仅是静态变量。

Its not very object oriented: One reason statics might be considered "evil" by some people is they are contrary the object-oriented paradigm. In particular, it violates the principle that data is encapsulated in objects (that can be extended, information hiding, etc). Statics, in the way you are describing using them, are essentially to use them as a global variable to avoid dealing with issues like scope. However, global variables is one of the defining characteristics of procedural or imperative programming paradigm, not a characteristic of "good" object oriented code. This is not to say the procedural paradigm is bad, but I get the impression your supervisor expects you to be writing "good object oriented code" and you're really wanting to write "good procedural code".

在Java中，当您开始使用静态时，有许多并不总是立即明显的陷阱。例如，如果在同一个VM中运行两个程序副本，它们会共享静态变量的值并混淆彼此的状态吗?或者当你扩展类时会发生什么，你能重写静态成员吗?您的虚拟机内存不足，因为您有疯狂的静态数据，并且内存不能为其他需要的实例对象回收?

Object Lifetime: Additionally, statics have a lifetime that matches the entire runtime of the program. This means, even once you're done using your class, the memory from all those static variables cannot be garbage collected. If, for example, instead, you made your variables non-static, and in your main() function you made a single instance of your class, and then asked your class to execute a particular function 10,000 times, once those 10,000 calls were done, and you delete your references to the single instance, all your static variables could be garbage collected and reused.

防止某些重复使用: 此外，静态方法不能用于实现接口，因此静态方法会阻止某些面向对象的特性的可用性。

Other Options: If efficiency is your primary concern, there might be other better ways to solve the speed problem than considering only the advantage of invocation being usually faster than creation. Consider whether the transient or volatile modifiers are needed anywhere. To preserve the ability to be inlined, a method could be marked as final instead of static. Method parameters and other variables can be marked final to permit certain compiler optimiazations based on assumptions about what can change those variables. An instance object could be reused multiple times rather than creating a new instance each time. There may be compliler optimization switches that should be turned on for the app in general. Perhaps, the design should be set up so that the 10,000 runs can be multi-threaded and take advantage of multi-processor cores. If portablity isn't a concern, maybe a native method would get you better speed than your statics do.

If for some reason you do not want multiple copies of an object, the singleton design pattern, has advantages over static objects, such as thread-safety (presuming your singleton is coded well), permitting lazy-initialization, guaranteeing the object has been properly initialized when it is used, sub-classing, advantages in testing and refactoring your code, not to mention, if at some point you change your mind about only wanting one instance of an object it is MUCH easier to remove the code to prevent duplicate instances than it is to refactor all your static variable code to use instance variables. I've had to do that before, its not fun, and you end up having to edit a lot more classes, which increases your risk of introducing new bugs...so much better to set things up "right" the first time, even if it seems like it has its disadvantages. For me, the re-work required should you decide down the road you need multiple copies of something is probably one of most compelling reasons to use statics as infrequently as possible. And thus I would also disagree with your statement that statics reduce inter-dependencies, I think you will end up with code that is more coupled if you have lots of statics that can be directly accessed, rather than an object that "knows how to do something" on itself.

我发现静态变量使用起来更方便。而且我认为它们也很有效(如果我错了请纠正我)，因为如果我必须在一个类中对一个函数进行10,000次调用，我很乐意将方法设置为静态的，并在其上使用直接的class. methodcall()，而不是用10,000个类实例来混乱内存，对吗?

我明白你的想法，但一个简单的单例模式将做同样的事情，而不必实例化10,000个对象。

可以使用静态方法，但只能用于与对象域相关且不需要或使用对象的内部属性的函数。

ex:

public class WaterContainer {
    private int size;
    private int brand;
    ...etc

    public static int convertToGallon(int liters)...

    public static int convertToLiters(int gallon)...

}

不。全球国家本身并不邪恶。但我们必须看看你的代码，看看你是否正确使用了它。一个新手很有可能滥用全局状态;就像他会滥用每一种语言特性一样。

全局状态是绝对必要的。我们不能回避全球国家。我们无法避免对全球状态进行推理。-如果我们关心我们的应用程序语义。

那些为了摆脱全局状态而试图摆脱全局状态的人，最终不可避免地会得到一个更复杂的系统——全局状态仍然存在，巧妙地/愚蠢地伪装在许多层间接之下;在解开所有的间接之后，我们仍然需要推理全局状态。

就像Spring的人在xml中大量声明全局状态，并认为它在某种程度上更优越。

@Jon Skeet如果我创建一个对象的新实例，现在你有两件事要考虑——对象内部的状态，以及承载对象的环境的状态。