我玩过很多静力学，我可以给你一个稍微不同的答案——或者可能是稍微不同的看待它的方式吗?

当我在一个类中使用静态(成员和方法)时，我最终开始注意到我的类实际上是两个分担责任的类——“静态”部分很像单例，而非静态部分(普通类)。据我所知，你可以通过为一个类选择所有静态类，为另一个类选择所有非静态类来完全分离这两个类。

当我在一个类中有一个静态集合，其中包含类的实例和一些静态方法来管理集合时，这种情况经常发生。一旦你思考一下，很明显你的类不是在做“一件事”，它是一个集合，做一些完全不同的事情。

现在，让我们稍微重构一下这个问题:如果你把你的类分成一个类，其中所有的东西都是静态的，而另一个类只是一个“普通类”，然后忘记“普通类”，那么你的问题就变成了纯静态类vs单例，这是在这里详细讨论的(可能还有其他十几个问题)。

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.

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。

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;)

a)关于程序的原因。

如果你有一个小型到中型的程序，其中静态变量Global。Foo被访问，对它的调用通常不知道从哪里来——没有路径，因此也没有时间轴，变量是如何到达这个地方的，它在哪里被使用。现在我怎么知道是谁设置了它的实际值呢?如果我现在修改它，我怎么知道会发生什么呢?我让grep覆盖整个源代码，收集所有访问，知道发生了什么。

如果你知道如何使用它，因为你只是写了代码，问题是看不见的，但如果你试着理解外国代码，你就会明白。

b)你真的只需要一个吗?

静态变量通常会阻止相同类型的多个程序在相同JVM中运行，但它们的值不同。您通常无法预见在哪些情况下您的程序的多个实例是有用的，但是如果它发展了，或者如果它对其他人有用，他们可能会遇到这样的情况，他们想要启动您的程序的多个实例。

只有那些在较长时间内不会被很多人密集使用的或多或少无用的代码才可能适合使用静态变量。

静态变量本身并没有什么问题。只是Java语法有问题。每个Java类实际上定义了两个结构——一个封装静态变量的单例对象和一个实例。在同一个源代码块中定义这两种代码是非常糟糕的，会导致代码难以阅读。Scala做得很好。