在我看来，这与性能无关，而是与设计有关。我不认为使用静态方法和使用静态变量是错误的(但我猜你实际上是在谈论方法调用)。

它只是关于如何分离逻辑并给它一个好的位置。有时这证明使用静态方法是正确的，java.lang.Math就是一个很好的例子。我认为，当您将大多数类命名为XxxUtil或Xxxhelper时，您最好重新考虑您的设计。

总结在Java中使用静态方法的几个基本优点和缺点:

优点:

全局可访问，即不与任何特定的对象实例绑定。 每个JVM一个实例。 可以通过类名访问(不需要对象)。 包含一个适用于所有实例的值。 在JVM启动时加载，并在JVM关闭时死亡。 它们不会修改Object的状态。

缺点:

Static members are always part of memory whether they are in use or not. You can not control creation and destruction of static variable. Usefully they have been created at program loading and destroyed when program unload (or when JVM shuts down). You can make statics thread safe using synchronize but you need some extra efforts. If one thread change value of a static variable that can possibly break functionality of other threads. You must know “static“ before using it. You cannot override static methods. Serialization doesn't work well with them. They don't participate in runtime polymorphism. There is a memory issue (to some extent but not much I guess) if a large number of static variables/methods are used. Because they will not be Garbage Collected until program ends. Static methods are hard to test too.

一切(可以:)都有它的目的，如果你有一堆线程，需要共享/缓存数据和所有可访问的内存(所以你不分裂成上下文在一个JVM)静态是最好的选择->当然你可以强制只有一个实例，但为什么? 我发现这个帖子里的一些评论是邪恶的，不是静态的;)

邪恶是一个主观的术语。

你不能从创建和破坏的角度来控制静态。他们按照程序的要求生活装卸。

由于静态对象存在于一个空间中，所有希望使用它们的线程都必须通过您必须管理的访问控制。这意味着程序更加耦合，这种变化更难想象和管理(就像J Skeet说的那样)。这导致了隔离变更影响的问题，从而影响了如何管理测试。

这是我对他们的两个主要问题。

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。

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.