|
|
|
|
|
|
by andrewbinstock
1023 days ago
|
|
|
Author here. Your "correction" is wrong. All dimensions after the zero dimension are ignored by the JVM. This is explicitly stated in the JVM spec[0].The typecheck you're leaning on is a purely syntactical construct. Inside the JVM, the arrays function and are sized just as I described. > Object having no size() method and arrays having therefore a length field is also confused. Arrays have distinct types (and classes, in the sense of getClass()), and therefore could very well have a size() method. It’s merely a stylistic choice of Java that they opted for the simpler .length syntax. What's the "confused" part? Again, my description is accurate and you're simply saying that Java could have chosen a different way to do the same thing, but decided not to. [0] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se16/html/jvms-6.h... |
|
|
What is stated is: “If any count value is zero, no subsequent dimensions are allocated.” This is mostly just for clarification, because what could the alternative possibly be? It is equivalent to saying that count subarrays are allocated, which when count is zero, of course means that none are allocated. Again, what would the alternative possibly be?
Furthermore, strangePoints.getClass() results in `[[[[I` (so it’s not just syntactical, it’s the actual runtime type), i.e. a four-dimensional array of ints, and not a two-dimensional array of ints as the article claims.
What is true is that what is allocated is a two-dimensional array, but it is an array of empty arrays, not of ints. For example, the expression strangePoints[0][0].length is valid (and yields 0), whereas it wouldn’t be valid for a two-dimensional array of ints. And again that’s on the JVM level, because otherwise the ARRAYLENGTH operation wouldn’t work here. Furthermore, strangePoints[0][0].getClass() of course is valid as well and yields `[[I`, showing that the element type of the two-dimensional array is another two-dimensional array (of ints), and not int.
> What's the "confused" part?
The confused part is this: “Many Java collections have a method called size(), which returns an integer stating the number of elements in the collection. Arrays have no such method. There are several reasons for this, but the principal one is that arrays are simple Object instances—they are not collections. The Object class has no size() method, so arrays don’t either.”
There is no reason why array objects couldn’t have a size() method even though Object doesn’t. Invoking getClass() on an array doesn’t return Object.class, but a subclass of that, and those subclasses could have the additional size() method.
This is also wrong: “Eagle-eyed readers of my earlier statement about length being a field rather than a method call might wonder how a direct subclass of Object would have a field called length to begin with, as Object has no such field.” Arrays don’t have a length field, as calling .getClass().getFields() (or getDeclaredFields()) on an array shows. The .length property is mere syntax, much like .class on an object type. But, again, Java/the JVM could have chosen to imbue array classes with a fully-fledged size() method.