[rld]

No, it applies for local variables as well: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7423028/java-local-variab...

I still don't understand why you consider having a compiler-enforced restriction on mutation worse than letting readers figure out what was the developer's intent.

In Java, the only "downside" is having to add "final" as a modifier, which is negligible.

In Scala, the alternative is to declare that variable as "var" instead of "val". When would you ever choose var over val if your object isn't supposed to mutate?

[StefanKarpinski]

That's just a weird wart of Java – not allowing anonymous inner classes to close over non-final variables was just a cheat to avoid having to implement proper closures; I have no idea what the technical impediments to doing so were when that decision was made, but plenty of languages, including Scala, have real closures.

> In Scala, the alternative is to declare that variable as "var" instead of "val". When would you ever choose var over val if your object isn't supposed to mutate?

It's an extra keyword, an extra complication in the language – one more binary choice to multiply with all the other options. It would be nice to get rid of the distinction altogether.

[ma_mazmaz]

In Scala, there are both mutable and immutable data structures. Immutable data structures are preferred, however there are some cases in which a dash of mutability can simplify the code, especially in cases where Java inter-op is a must.