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

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。

从我的观点来看,静态变量应该只读取数据或变量创建的约定。

For example we have a ui of some project, and we have a list of countries, languages, user roles, etc. And we have class to organize this data. we absolutely sure that app will not work without this lists. so the first that we do on app init is checking this list for updates and getting this list from api (if needed). So we agree that this data is "always" present in app. It is practically read only data so we don't need to take care of it's state - thinking about this case we really don't want to have a lot of instances of those data - this case looks a perfect candidate to be static.

Static fields are de facto GC roots (see the How Garbage Collection Works section earlier in this chapter), which means they are never garbage-collected! For convenience alone, static fields and collections are often used to hold caches or share state across threads. Mutable static fields need to be cleaned up explicitly. If the developer does not consider every possibility (a near certainty), the cleanup will not take place, resulting in a memory leak. This sort of careless programming means that static fields and collections have become the most common cause of memory leaks!

简而言之,永远不要使用可变静态字段——只使用常量。如果您认为需要可变静态字段,请再三考虑!总有更合适的方法。

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。