我是一名Java程序员,刚进入企业界。最近我用Groovy和Java开发了一个应用程序。在我编写的所有代码中,都使用了相当多的静态元素。高级技术人员要求我减少使用的静态数据的数量。我在谷歌上搜索过相同的内容,我发现许多程序员都相当反对使用静态变量。

我发现静态变量使用起来更方便。而且我假定它们也是有效的(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,我将很高兴使方法静态,并在其上使用直接的class . methodcall(),而不是用10,000个类实例使内存混乱,对吗?

此外,静态减少了对代码其他部分的相互依赖。他们可以作为完美的国家持有者。除此之外,我还发现一些语言(如Smalltalk和Scala)广泛地实现了静态。那么为什么程序员普遍反对静态(尤其是在Java世界中)呢?

PS:如果我对静态数据的假设是错误的,请纠正我。


当前回答

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.

其他回答

静态变量有两个主要问题:

线程安全——静态资源根据定义不是线程安全的 代码隐式——你不知道一个静态变量何时被实例化,也不知道它是否会在另一个静态变量之前被实例化

我认为过度使用全局变量和静态关键字也会导致应用程序中实例的某些点的内存泄漏

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。

“静态是邪恶的”这个问题更多的是关于全局状态的问题。一个变量保持静态的适当时间是当它从来没有超过一个状态时;IE工具应该可以被整个框架访问,并且总是为相同的方法调用返回相同的结果,这些都不是静态的“邪恶”。关于你的评论:

我发现静态变量使用起来更方便。我认为他们也很有效率

对于永远不会改变的变量/类,静态是理想和有效的选择。

The problem with global state is the inherent inconsistency that it can create. Documentation about unit tests often address this issue, since any time there is a global state that can be accessed by more than multiple unrelated objects, your unit tests will be incomplete, and not 'unit' grained. As mentioned in this article about global state and singletons, if object A and B are unrelated (as in one is not expressly given reference to another), then A should not be able to affect the state of B.

在良好的代码中,有一些禁用全局状态的例外,例如时钟。时间是全局的,在某种意义上,它改变了对象的状态,而不需要编码关系。

静态变量最重要的是会造成数据安全性问题(任何时间更改,任何人都可以更改,直接访问而不需要对象等)。

欲了解更多信息,请阅读这篇文章 谢谢。