Develop Reference

Where is the reference to the lambda function?

I'm trying to understand exactly how lambdas and higher order functions work at the JVM level in modern Java. I wrote this simple test class:
public final class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
var s = new Object[] { 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 };
System.out.println(sum(s, x -> 1000000.0));
}
public static double sum(Object[] s, Function<Object, Double> f) {
var r = 0.0;
for (var a : s) {
r += f.apply(a);
}
return r;
}
}
that compiles to this:
Compiled from "Main.java"
public final class prover.Main {
public prover.Main();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
public static double sum(java.lang.Object[], java.util.function.Function<java.lang.Object, java.lang.Double>);
Code:
0: dconst_0
1: dstore_2
2: aload_0
3: astore 4
5: aload 4
7: arraylength
8: istore 5
10: iconst_0
11: istore 6
13: iload 6
15: iload 5
17: if_icmpge 50
20: aload 4
22: iload 6
24: aaload
25: astore 7
27: dload_2
28: aload_1
29: aload 7
31: invokeinterface #7, 2 // InterfaceMethod java/util/function/Function.apply:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/Object;
36: checkcast #13 // class java/lang/Double
39: invokevirtual #15 // Method java/lang/Double.doubleValue:()D
42: dadd
43: dstore_2
44: iinc 6, 1
47: goto 13
50: dload_2
51: dreturn
public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
Code:
0: iconst_3
1: anewarray #2 // class java/lang/Object
4: dup
5: iconst_0
6: dconst_1
7: invokestatic #19 // Method java/lang/Double.valueOf:(D)Ljava/lang/Double;
10: aastore
11: dup
12: iconst_1
13: ldc2_w #23 // double 2.0d
16: invokestatic #19 // Method java/lang/Double.valueOf:(D)Ljava/lang/Double;
19: aastore
20: dup
21: iconst_2
22: ldc2_w #25 // double 3.0d
25: invokestatic #19 // Method java/lang/Double.valueOf:(D)Ljava/lang/Double;
28: aastore
29: astore_1
30: getstatic #27 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
33: aload_1
34: invokedynamic #33, 0 // InvokeDynamic #0:apply:()Ljava/util/function/Function;
39: invokestatic #36 // Method sum:([Ljava/lang/Object;Ljava/util/function/Function;)D
42: invokevirtual #42 // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(D)V
45: return
private static java.lang.Double lambda$main$0(java.lang.Object);
Code:
0: ldc2_w #48 // double 1000000.0d
3: invokestatic #19 // Method java/lang/Double.valueOf:(D)Ljava/lang/Double;
6: areturn
}
Now, the lambda function itself gets compiled to the private static method at the end, that much is clear enough. But where is it referred to? The code to call sum seems to be:
33: aload_1
34: invokedynamic #33, 0 // InvokeDynamic #0:apply:()Ljava/util/function/Function;
39: invokestatic #36 // Method sum:([Ljava/lang/Object;Ljava/util/function/Function;)D
Is that somehow referring to the lambda function? If so, how? What's the reference?

Using javap -p -v will produce a section labeled BootstrapMethods that lists all bootstrap methods used to initialize lambdas:
BootstrapMethods:
0: #41 REF_invokeStatic java/lang/invoke/LambdaMetafactory.metafactory:(Ljava/lang/invoke/MethodHandles$Lookup;Ljava/lang/String;Ljava/lang/invoke/MethodType;Ljava/lang/invoke/MethodType;Ljava/lang/invoke/MethodHandle;Ljava/lang/invoke/MethodType;)Ljava/lang/invoke/CallSite;
Method arguments:
#42 (Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/Object;
#43 REF_invokeStatic Scratch.lambda$main$0:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/Double;
#44 (Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/Double;
This one contains references to the methods implementing the actual code (Scratch.lambda$main$0 in my case, the exact name will vary depending on compiler-vendor/-version/-flags).
Note that the representation in the Class files has intentionally been kept at a fairly high level (there are bootstrap methods that return the actual code to be executed at run time). This means that the JVM doesn't have a lot of restrictions as to how to implement and optimize this. That also means that studying the bytecode will only ever tell you so much, because the JVM can pretty freely interpret what it sees there.

Does String concatenation get optimized to use existing StringBuilders?

I have the following code:
StringBuilder str = new StringBuilder("foo");
for(Field f : fields){
str.append("|" + f);
}
str.append("|" + bar);
String result = str.toString();
I know compiler will optimize string concatenation "|" + f and replace it with StringBuilder. However will a new StringBuilder be created or the existing str will be used in Java 8? How about Java 9?

By default in java-9 there will be no StringBuilder for string concatenation; it is a runtime decision how it's made via the invokedynamic. And the default policy is not a StringBuilder::append one.
You can also read more here.
Under java-8 a new one will be created (really easy to spot two occurrences of invokespecial // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V in the de-compiled bytecode.
Also, you have a suggestion about append.append...; just notice that this is much better than sb.append ... sb.append, and here is why.

As String concatenation optimization is performed by the Java compiler, you can see what it does by decompiling the byte code:
$ cat Test.java
interface Field {}
public class Test {
static String toString(Field[] fields, Object bar) {
StringBuilder str = new StringBuilder("foo");
for(Field f : fields){
str.append("|" + f);
}
str.append("|" + bar);
return str.toString();
}
}
$ javac Test.java
$ javap -c Test.class
Compiled from "Test.java"
public class stackoverflow.Test {
public stackoverflow.Test();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #8 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
static java.lang.String toString(stackoverflow.Field[], java.lang.Object);
Code:
0: new #16 // class java/lang/StringBuilder
3: dup
4: ldc #18 // String foo
6: invokespecial #20 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":(Ljava/lang/String;)V
9: astore_2
10: aload_0
11: dup
12: astore 6
14: arraylength
15: istore 5
17: iconst_0
18: istore 4
20: goto 53
23: aload 6
25: iload 4
27: aaload
28: astore_3
29: aload_2
30: new #16 // class java/lang/StringBuilder
33: dup
34: ldc #23 // String |
36: invokespecial #20 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":(Ljava/lang/String;)V
39: aload_3
40: invokevirtual #25 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
43: invokevirtual #29 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
46: invokevirtual #32 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
49: pop
50: iinc 4, 1
53: iload 4
55: iload 5
57: if_icmplt 23
60: aload_2
61: new #16 // class java/lang/StringBuilder
64: dup
65: ldc #23 // String |
67: invokespecial #20 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":(Ljava/lang/String;)V
70: aload_1
71: invokevirtual #25 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
74: invokevirtual #29 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
77: invokevirtual #32 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
80: pop
81: aload_2
82: invokevirtual #29 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
85: areturn
}
As you can see, the code invokes StringBuilder constructors (Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":) in 3 places, so new StringBuilders would be created in each iteration (unless the just-in-time compiler performs fancy optimization).
This is very unlikely to be a significant performance problem, but in the unlikely case it is you can easily fix this by rewriting to
str.append("|").append(f);

As per the Java 9 API documentation
Implementation Note:
The implementation of the string concatenation operator is left to the discretion of a Java compiler, as long as the compiler ultimately conforms to The Java™ Language Specification. For example, the javac compiler may implement the operator with StringBuffer, StringBuilder, or java.lang.invoke.StringConcatFactory depending on the JDK version. The implementation of string conversion is typically through the method toString, defined by Object and inherited by all classes in Java.
According to this it will create a new String builder each iteration in your case. So, as mentioned by several people here, using the below code is more optimized
append("|").append(f)
You can find API Documentation here

What is the performance differences between if and logical operators

I was wondering would there be a performance differences while i use logical operators instead of several if statements. I saw a nice link, does this apply to java also?

I just created class like
class Test{
static java.util.Random r=new java.util.Random();
boolean test(){
return r.nextBoolean();
}
void test1(){
if (test() && test() && test())
System.out.println("3x yes");
}
void test2(){
if (test())
if (test())
if (test())
System.out.println("3x yes");
}
}
compiled it then decompiled by javap -c Test and got these result
class Test {
static java.util.Random r;
Test();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":
()V
4: return
boolean test();
Code:
0: getstatic #2 // Field r:Ljava/util/Random;
3: invokevirtual #3 // Method java/util/Random.nextBoole
an:()Z
6: ireturn
void test1();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokevirtual #4 // Method test:()Z
4: ifeq 29
7: aload_0
8: invokevirtual #4 // Method test:()Z
11: ifeq 29
14: aload_0
15: invokevirtual #4 // Method test:()Z
18: ifeq 29
21: getstatic #5 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/
io/PrintStream;
24: ldc #6 // String 3x yes
26: invokevirtual #7 // Method java/io/PrintStream.printl
n:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
29: return
void test2();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokevirtual #4 // Method test:()Z
4: ifeq 29
7: aload_0
8: invokevirtual #4 // Method test:()Z
11: ifeq 29
14: aload_0
15: invokevirtual #4 // Method test:()Z
18: ifeq 29
21: getstatic #5 // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/
io/PrintStream;
24: ldc #6 // String 3x yes
26: invokevirtual #7 // Method java/io/PrintStream.printl
n:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
29: return
static {};
Code:
0: new #8 // class java/util/Random
3: dup
4: invokespecial #9 // Method java/util/Random."<init>":
()V
7: putstatic #2 // Field r:Ljava/util/Random;
10: return
}
As you can see bytecodes of test1 and test2 are same, so there is no difference in using
if (test() && test() && test())
or
if (test())
if (test())
if (test())

It's implementation dependent - so you'll need to benchmark to be sure.
Having said that, most JIT compilers are smart enough to optimise boolean comparisons very effectively so you are unlikely to see any difference.
The only area where logical operators are likely to offer a substantial advantage are in cases where you are using them to perform bitwise computations. This can be very efficient since it can result in branchless code that exploits hardware instructions.

Both forms compile to the same code. Contrary to the suggestions in other answers, this is not an 'optimization', and it would be astonishing if different compilers did different things. There is only one sensible way to compile && and that is by treating it the same as another 'if'. I can't even think of a non-sensible way.

optimizations when translating java source code to bytecode

Are there any optimizations, such as dead code elimination, involved when translating java source files to bytecodes?

The standard Java compilers do few optimizations on the emitted bytecodes. I think that the reasoning is that unoptimized bytecodes will be easier for the HotSpot JIT compiler to optimize.
The links that #Mitch Wheat provided in comments above (particularly the 2nd one) date from the days when HotSpot JIT was new technology.

While searching all source code optimization, i came across this question and though I am answering after long time this question asked.
After jdk1.7, String concatenation using plus [+] operator converted to StringBuilder append e.g
public static void main(String[] args) {
String s = new String("");
s = s+"new";
}
Converted to StringBuilder append as shown in bytecode
public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
descriptor: ([Ljava/lang/String;)V
flags: ACC_PUBLIC, ACC_STATIC
Code:
stack=3, locals=2, args_size=1
0: new #2 // class java/lang/String
3: dup
4: ldc #3 // String
6: invokespecial #4 // Method java/lang/String."<init>":(Ljava/lang/String;)V
9: astore_1
10: new #5 // class java/lang/StringBuilder
13: dup
14: invokespecial #6 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
17: aload_1
18: invokevirtual #7 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
21: ldc #8 // String new
23: invokevirtual #7 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
26: invokevirtual #9 // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
29: astore_1
30: return
LineNumberTable:
line 13: 0
line 14: 10
line 15: 30
LocalVariableTable:
Start Length Slot Name Signature
0 31 0 args [Ljava/lang/String;
10 21 1 s Ljava/lang/String;
}

String Object. Clarification needed

Say i have the following line in my program:
jobSetupErrors.append("abc");
In the case above where jobSetupErrors is a StringBuilder(), what i see happen is:
New String Object is created and assigned value "abc"
value of that String object is assigned to the existing StringBuilder object
If that is correct, and I add 1 more line ...
jobSetupErrors.append("abc");
logger.info("abc");
In the above example are we creating String object separately 2 times?
If so, would it be more proper to do something like this?
String a = "abc";
jobSetupErrors.append(a);
logger.info(a);
Is this a better approach? Please advise

In the above example are we creating
String object separately 2 times?
No, because in Java String literals (anything in double-quotes) are interned. What this means is that both of those lines are referring to the same String, so no further optimization is necessary.
In your second example, you are only creating an extra reference to the same String, but this is what Java has already done for you by placing a reference to it in something called the string pool. This happens the first time it sees "abc"; the second time, it checks the pool and finds that "abc" already exists, so it is replaced with the same reference as the first one.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_interning for more information on String interning.

To help find out, I wrote a class like the following:
class Test {
String a = "abc" ;
StringBuilder buffer = new StringBuilder() ;
public void normal() {
buffer.append( "abc" ) ;
buffer.append( "abc" ) ;
}
public void clever() {
buffer.append( a ) ;
buffer.append( a ) ;
}
}
If we compile this, and then run javap over it to extract the bytecode:
14:09:58 :: javap $ javap -c Test
Compiled from "Test.java"
class Test extends java.lang.Object{
java.lang.String a;
java.lang.StringBuilder buffer;
Test();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1; //Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: aload_0
5: ldc #2; //String abc
7: putfield #3; //Field a:Ljava/lang/String;
10: aload_0
11: new #4; //class java/lang/StringBuilder
14: dup
15: invokespecial #5; //Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
18: putfield #6; //Field buffer:Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
21: return
public void normal();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: getfield #6; //Field buffer:Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
4: ldc #2; //String abc
6: invokevirtual #7; //Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
9: pop
10: aload_0
11: getfield #6; //Field buffer:Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
14: ldc #2; //String abc
16: invokevirtual #7; //Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
19: pop
20: return
public void clever();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: getfield #6; //Field buffer:Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
4: aload_0
5: getfield #3; //Field a:Ljava/lang/String;
8: invokevirtual #7; //Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
11: pop
12: aload_0
13: getfield #6; //Field buffer:Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
16: aload_0
17: getfield #3; //Field a:Ljava/lang/String;
20: invokevirtual #7; //Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
23: pop
24: return
}
We can see 2 things.
First, the normal method is using the same String instance for both of those calls (indeed it is the same literal as is set to the a member variable of this class in the initialisation block)
And secondly, the clever method is longer than the normal one. This is because extra steps are required to fetch the property out of the class.
So the moral of the story is that 99% of the time, Java does things the right way on it's own, and theres no need in trying to be clever ;-) (and javap is a really cool tool for when you want to know exactly what's going on)