Develop Reference

AtomicInteger & lambda expressions in single-threaded app

I need to modify a local variable inside a lambda expression in a JButton's ActionListener and since I'm not able to modify it directly, I came across the AtomicInteger type.
I implemented it and it works just fine but I'm not sure if this is a good practice or if it is the correct way to solve this situation.
My code is the following:
newAnchorageButton.addActionListener(e -> {
AtomicInteger anchored = new AtomicInteger();
anchored.set(0);
cbSets.forEach(cbSet ->
cbSet.forEach(cb -> {
if (cb.isSelected())
anchored.incrementAndGet();
})
);
// more code where I use the 'anchored' variable...
}
I'm not sure if this is the right way to solve this since I've read that AtomicInteger is used mostly for concurrency-related applications and this program is single-threaded, but at the same time I can't find another way to solve this.
I could simply use two nested for-loops to go over those arrays but I'm trying to reduce the method's cognitive complexity as much as I can according to the sonarlint vscode extension, and leaving those for-loops theoretically increases the method complexity and therefore its readability and maintainability.
Replacing the for-loops with lambda expressions reduces the cognitive complexity but maybe I shouldn't pay that much attention to it.

While it is safe enough in single-threaded code, it would be better to count them in a functional way, like this:
long anchored = cbSets.stream() // get a stream of the sets
.flatMap(List::stream) // flatten to list of cb's
.filter(JCheckBox::isSelected) // only selected ones
.count(); // count them
Instead of mutating an accumulator, we limit the flattened stream to only the ones we're interested in and ask for the count.
More generally, though, it is always possible to sum things up or generally aggregate the values without a mutable variable. Consider:
record Country(int population) { }
countries.stream()
.mapToInt(Country::population)
.reduce(0, Math::addExact)
Note: we never mutate any values; instead, we combine each successive value with the preceding one, producing a new value. One could use sum() but I prefer reduce(0, Math::addExact) to avoid the possibility of overflow.

and leaving those for-loops theoretically increases the method complexity and therefore its readability and maintainability.
This is obvious horsepuckey. x.forEach(foo -> bar) is not 'cognitively simpler' than for (var foo : x) bar; - you can map each AST node straight over from one to the other.
If a definition is being used to define complexity which concludes that one is significantly more complex than the other, then the only correct conclusion is that the definition is silly and should be fixed or abandoned.
To make it practical: Yes, introducing AtomicInteger, whilst performance wise it won't make one iota of difference, does make the code way more complicated. AtomicInteger's simple existence in the code suggests that concurrency is relevant here. It isn't, so you'd have to add a comment to explain why you're using it. Comments are evil. (They imply the code does not speak for itself, and they cannot be tested in any way). They are often the least evil, but evil they are nonetheless.
The general 'trick' for keeping lambda-based code cognitively easily followed is to embrace the pipeline:
You write some code that 'forms' a stream. This can be as simple as list.stream(), but sometimes you do some stream joining or flatmapping a collection of collections.
You have a pipeline of operations that operate on single elements in the stream and do not refer to the whole or to any neighbour.
At the end, you reduce (using collect, reduce, max - some terminator) such that the reducing method returns what you need.
The above model (and the other answer follows it precisely) tends to result in code that is as readable/complex as the 'old style' code, and rarely (but sometimes!) more readable, and significantly less complicated. Deviate from it and the result is virtually always considerably more complicated - a clear loser.
Not all for loops in java fit the above model. If it doesn't fit, then trying to force that particular square peg into the round hole will take a lot of effort and almost always results in code that is significantly worse: Either an order of magnitude slower or considerably more cognitively complicated.
It also means that it is virtually never 'worth' rewriting perfectly fine readable non-stream based code into stream based code; at best it becomes a percentage point more readable according to some personal tastes, with no significant universally agreed upon improvement.
Turn off that silly linter rule. The fact that it considers the above 'less' complex, and that it evidently determines that for (var foo : x) bar; is 'more complicated' than x.forEach(foo -> bar) is proof enough that it's hurting way more than it is helping.

I have the following to add to the two other answers:
Two general good practices in your code are in question:
Lambdas shouldn't be longer than 3-4 lines
Except in some precise cases, lambdas of stream operations should be stateless.
For #1, consider extracting the code of the lambda to a private method for example, when it's getting too long.
You will probably gain in readability, and you will also probably gain in better separating UI from business logic.
For #2, you are probably not concerned since you are working in a single thread at the moment, but streams can be parallelized, and they may not always execute exactly as you think it does.
For that reason, it's always better to keep the code stateless in stream pipeline operations. Otherwise you might be surprised.
More generally, streams are very good, very concise, but sometimes it's just better to do the same with good old loops.
Don't hesitate to come back to classic loops.
When Sonar tells you that the complexity is too high, in fact, you should try to factorize your code: split into smaller methods, improve the model of your objects, etc.

Is there a name for the difference of these two code styles?

When i see code from others, i mainly see two types of method-styling.
One looks like this, having many nested ifs:
void doSomething(Thing thing) {
if (thing.hasOwner()) {
Entity owner = thing.getOwner();
if (owner instanceof Human) {
Human humanOwner = (Human) owner;
if (humanOwner.getAge() > 20) {
//...
}
}
}
}
And the other style, looks like this:
void doSomething(Thing thing) {
if (!thing.hasOwner()) {
return;
}
Entity owner = thing.getOwner();
if (!(owner instanceof Human)) {
return;
}
Human humanOwner = (Human) owner;
if (humanOwner.getAge() <= 20) {
return;
}
//...
}
My question is, are there names for these two code styles? And if, what are they called.

The early-returns in the second example are known as guard clauses.
Prior to the actual thing the method is going to do, some preconditions are checked, and if they fail, the method immediately returns. It is a kind of fail-fast mechanism.
There's a lot of debate around those return statements. Some think that it's bad to have multiple return statements within a method. Others think that it avoids wrapping your code in a bunch of if statements, like in the first example.
My own humble option is in line with this post: minimize the number of returns, but use them if they enhance readability.
Related:
Should a function have only one return statement?
Better Java syntax: return early or late?
Guard clauses may be all you need

I don't know if there is a recognized name for the two styles, but in structured programming terms, they can be described as "single exit" versus "multiple exit" control structures. (This also includes continue and break statements in loop constructs.)
The classical structured programming paradigm advocated single exit over multiple exit, but most programmers these days are happy with either style, depending on the context. Even classically, relaxation of the "single exit" rule was acceptable when the resulting code was more readable.
(One needs to remember that structured programming was a viewed as the antidote to "spaghetti" programming, particularly in assembly language, where the sole control constructs were conditional and non-conditional branches.)

i would say it's about readability. The 2nd style which i prefer, gives you the opportunity to send for example messages to the user/program for any check that should stop the program.

One could call it "multiple returns" and "single return". But I wouldn't call it a style, you may want to use both approaches, depending on readability in any particular case.
Single return is considered a better practice in general, since it allows you to write more readable code with the least surprise for the reader. In a complex method, it may be quite complicated to understand at which point the program will exit for any particular arguments, and what side effects may occur.
But if in any particular case you feel multiple returns improve readability of your code, there's nothing wrong with using them.

Is in If condition the check obj == null more performance effective then obj!=null

According to one of my senior coding style 2 is better in performance than coding style 1,is it true ?
coding style 1
If (obj!=null)
{
Logic A
}
else
{
Logic B
}
coding style 2
If (obj==null)
{
Logic B
}
else
{
Logic A
}

In examples like this, it is developer performance you should worry about. What is the cleanest and simplest code and this will often be a pattern the JIT optimiser will do a good job, if not it's best job with.
In this example, even if you could measure a difference I would suspect
your test is broken.
the difference would be different on different machines or JVMs.
such a difference will disappear in future versions of Java.
BTW: Looking at the byte code is a very poor measure of performance, but I can say that the byte code generates and I suspect the native code generated will be the same length.

Whether or not it is faster to test for null or non-null can only be observed at the machine code level, which you have almost no control over. Your Java file will be compiled to bytecode and then, at runtime, this bytecode will be compiled again to machine code by the Just-in-Time compiler (JIT). The JIT performs all kids of advanced optimizations, one of which could be the reordering of branches with inversion of branching conditions.
Note that the CPU cycles spent on testing the value of the variable will be dwarfed by the penalty in branch misprediction, so correct branch prediction is the JIT compiler's foremest concern. You have absolutely zero control of these subtleties on the level of Java source code.
Therefore the unanimous advice is to take care to write code which reads most naturally and don't spend a second thinking on the peformance differential of branch ordering.

Performance should not make a difference as Peter Lawrey pointed out.
I guess your friend didn't talk about performance but about coding style.
When using if elseconstructs people often find it preferable to first handle the non-negated case in the if block before handling the negated case in the else block.
So one better writes
if (a == b) {
logicA();
}
else {
logicB();
}
instead of writing
if (a != b) {
logicB();
}
else {
logicA();
}
as it usually leads to better readability.

Your senior should provide "measurable" test cases to prove to you which logic is better.
You shouldn't worry about optimization logic as the compiler does all the optimization for you. Rather, focus on readability of code (and flow logic?). Example, Java 7 introduced <T> T Objects.requireNotNull(T obj) method, which internally does:
if (obj == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
return x;
Which is better, especially when creating API's as you have a business logic that "asserts"/guarantees not null.

Why does Scala implement for as a closure?

Recent events on the blogosphere have indicated that a possible performance problem with Scala is its use of closures to implement for.
What are the reasons for this design decision, as opposed to a C or Java-style "primitive for" - that is one which will be turned into a simple loop?
(I'm making a distinction between Java's for and its "foreach" construct here, as the latter involves an implicit Iterator).
More detail, following up from Peter. This bit of Scala:
object ScratchFor {
def main(args : Array[String]) : Unit = {
for (val s <- args) {
println(s)
}
}
}
creates 3 classes: ScratchFor$$anonfun$main$1.class ScratchFor$.class ScratchFor.class
ScratchFor::main just forwards to the companion object, ScratchFor$.MODULE$::main which spins up an ScratchFor$$anonfun$main$1 (which is an implementation of AbstractFunction1).
It's in the apply() method of this anonymous inner impl of AbstractFunction1 that the actual code lives, which is effectively the loop body.
I don't see HotSpot being able to rewrite this into a simple loop. Happy to be proved wrong on this, though.

Traditional for loops are clumsy, verbose and error-prone. I think it is proof enough of this that "for-each" loops where added to Java, C# and C++, but if you want more details you may check item 46 of Effective Java.
Now, for-each loops are still much faster than Scala for-comprehension, but they are also much less powerful (and more clumsy) because they cannot return values. If you want to transform or filter a collection (or do both to a group of collections), you'll still have to handle all the mechanical details of constructing the result collection in addition to computing the values. Not to mention it inevitably uses some mutable state.
Finally, even though for-each loops are adequate enough for collections, they are not suited to other monadic classes (of which collections are a subset of).
So Scala has a general method which takes care of all of the above. Yes, it is slower, but the goal is to have the compiler effectively optimise it well enough so that this doesn't become a hindrance (and, of course, JIT could help here as well).
That has not been accomplished to this date, but -optimise has reduced a lot of ground between common for-each loops and for-comprehensions on the latest versions of Scala. If performance is essential, you can always use while or tail recursion.
Now, it would be possibly for Scala to have common for loops or for-each loops as special cases specifically targeted at performance issues (since for-comprehensions can do everything they do). However, that violates two principles that guide Scala's design:
Reduce complexity. Yes, contrary to what some say, that is a design goal, and special cases that serve no other purpose other than optimise performance -- even though a workable solution exists for performance cases -- would needlessly increase the complexity of the language.
Scalability. This is in the sense that the use can scale the language for any size of problem by writing libraries. The point here is that having the compiler optimise one particular class, such as Range, would make it impossible for the user to create a replacement class that would perform just as well.

The for comprehension in Scala is a powerful general-purpose looping and pattern-matching construct. Look at what it can do:
case class Person(first: String, last: String) {}
val people = List(Person("Isaac","Newton"), Person("Michael","Jordan"))
val lastfirst = for (Person(f,l) <- people) yield l+", "+f
for (n <- lastfirst) println(n)
The second case looks pretty straightforward--take each item in a collection and print it. But the first takes apart a list containing a custom data structure and transforms it into a different collection type!
The first for there highlights only a small portion of the capability of the construct; it is both extremely powerful and extremely general. In order to maintain this power, the for must be able to turn into something very general, which means closures. Then the question is: do you also introduce special cases that operate on known collections in simple ways with improved performance? The answer thus far has been mostly no, instead preferring solutions that optimize the general closure-taking methods that for turns into.
Whether this is useful for you in particular depends on whether you are using the general capabilities a lot (in which case you will be glad) or not (in which case you may wish progress was faster).
Still, try -optimize. It often usefully speeds up simple for-comprehensions these days.

The for-comprehension is much more than a simple loop.
If you need an imperative loop, use while. If you want to write performant code in Scala, you need to know this. Just like you have to know about language implementation when you want to write fast code in every other language.
So, since the for-comprehension is not a simple loop, I hope you understand that it's not compiled down to a simple loop.

I would assume using a closure is a general solution. A more optimal solution in some cases would be to "inline" the closure as a loop and eliminate the need to create an object. Perhaps the Scala designers feel the JIT should do this, rather having the compiler do this.
Let's say in Java this is the same as writing
public static void main(String... args) {
for_loop(args, new Function<String>() {
public void apply(String s) {
System.out.println(s);
}
});
}
interface Function<T> {
void apply(T s);
}
public static <T> void for_loop(T... ts, Function<T> tFunc) {
for(T t: ts) tFunc.apply(t);
}
This is fairly easy to inline (if you're a human). What is surprising is that Scala doesn't have an intrinsic to perform the optimisation to eliminate the need for a new object. Certainly the JIT could do it in theory, but in practise, it might be a while before it handles this specific case.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned one of the pitfalls you can get into if for does not create a closure.
In Python for example:
ls = [None] * 3
for i in [0, 1, 2]:
ls[i] = lambda: i
print(ls[0]())
print(ls[1]())
print(ls[2]())
This prints 2 2 2, because i has a longer lifetime than the for loop. I run into this trap all the time in Python and R.
So even in the very simplest of cases, it is important for for in Scala to be implemented using an anonymous function, because it creates an environment to store variables.

Should I avoid using Java Label Statements?

Today I had a coworker suggest I refactor my code to use a label statement to control flow through 2 nested for loops I had created. I've never used them before because personally I think they decrease the readability of a program. I am willing to change my mind about using them if the argument is solid enough however. What are people's opinions on label statements?

Many algorithms are expressed more easily if you can jump across two loops (or a loop containing a switch statement). Don't feel bad about it. On the other hand, it may indicate an overly complex solution. So stand back and look at the problem.
Some people prefer a "single entry, single exit" approach to all loops. That is to say avoiding break (and continue) and early return for loops altogether. This may result in some duplicate code.
What I would strongly avoid doing is introducing auxilary variables. Hiding control-flow within state adds to confusion.
Splitting labeled loops into two methods may well be difficult. Exceptions are probably too heavyweight. Try a single entry, single exit approach.

Labels are like goto's: Use them sparingly, and only when they make your code faster and more importantly, more understandable,
e.g., If you are in big loops six levels deep and you encounter a condition that makes the rest of the loop pointless to complete, there's no sense in having 6 extra trap doors in your condition statements to exit out the loop early.
Labels (and goto's) aren't evil, it's just that sometimes people use them in bad ways. Most of the time we are actually trying to write our code so it is understandable for you and the next programmer who comes along. Making it uber-fast is a secondary concern (be wary of premature optimization).
When Labels (and goto's) are misused they make the code less readable, which causes grief for you and the next developer. The compiler doesn't care.

There are few occasions when you need labels and they can be confusing because they are rarely used. However if you need to use one then use one.
BTW: this compiles and runs.
class MyFirstJavaProg {
public static void main(String args[]) {
http://www.javacoffeebreak.com/java101/java101.html
System.out.println("Hello World!");
}
}

I'm curious to hear what your alternative to labels is. I think this is pretty much going to boil down to the argument of "return as early as possible" vs. "use a variable to hold the return value, and only return at the end."
Labels are pretty standard when you have nested loops. The only way they really decrease readability is when another developer has never seen them before and doesn't understand what they mean.

I have use a Java labeled loop for an implementation of a Sieve method to find prime numbers (done for one of the project Euler math problems) which made it 10x faster compared to nested loops. Eg if(certain condition) go back to outer loop.
private static void testByFactoring() {
primes: for (int ctr = 0; ctr < m_toFactor.length; ctr++) {
int toTest = m_toFactor[ctr];
for (int ctr2 = 0; ctr2 < m_divisors.length; ctr2++) {
// max (int) Math.sqrt(m_numberToTest) + 1 iterations
if (toTest != m_divisors[ctr2]
&& toTest % m_divisors[ctr2] == 0) {
continue primes;
}
} // end of the divisor loop
} // end of primes loop
} // method
I asked a C++ programmer how bad labeled loops are, he said he would use them sparingly, but they can occasionally come in handy. For example, if you have 3 nested loops and for certain conditions you want to go back to the outermost loop.
So they have their uses, it depends on the problem you were trying to solve.

I've never seen labels used "in the wild" in Java code. If you really want to break across nested loops, see if you can refactor your method so that an early return statement does what you want.
Technically, I guess there's not much difference between an early return and a label. Practically, though, almost every Java developer has seen an early return and knows what it does. I'd guess many developers would at least be surprised by a label, and probably be confused.
I was taught the single entry / single exit orthodoxy in school, but I've since come to appreciate early return statements and breaking out of loops as a way to simplify code and make it clearer.

I'd argue in favour of them in some locations, I found them particularly useful in this example:
nextItem: for(CartItem item : user.getCart()) {
nextCondition : for(PurchaseCondition cond : item.getConditions()) {
if(!cond.check())
continue nextItem;
else
continue nextCondition;
}
purchasedItems.add(item);
}

I think with the new for-each loop, the label can be really clear.
For example:
sentence: for(Sentence sentence: paragraph) {
for(String word: sentence) {
// do something
if(isDone()) {
continue sentence;
}
}
}
I think that looks really clear by having your label the same as your variable in the new for-each. In fact, maybe Java should be evil and add implicit labels for-each variables heh

I never use labels in my code. I prefer to create a guard and initialize it to null or other unusual value. This guard is often a result object. I haven't seen any of my coworkers using labels, nor found any in our repository. It really depends on your style of coding. In my opinion using labels would decrease the readability as it's not a common construct and usually it's not used in Java.

Yes, you should avoid using label unless there's a specific reason to use them (the example of it simplifying implementation of an algorithm is pertinent). In such a case I would advise adding sufficient comments or other documentation to explain the reasoning behind it so that someone doesn't come along later and mangle it out of some notion of "improving the code" or "getting rid of code smell" or some other potentially BS excuse.
I would equate this sort of question with deciding when one should or shouldn't use the ternary if. The chief rationale being that it can impede readability and unless the programmer is very careful to name things in a reasonable way then use of conventions such as labels might make things a lot worse. Suppose the example using 'nextCondition' and 'nextItem' had used 'loop1' and 'loop2' for his label names.
Personally labels are one of those features that don't make a lot of sense to me, outside of Assembly or BASIC and other similarly limited languages. Java has plenty of more conventional/regular loop and control constructs.

I found labels to be sometimes useful in tests, to separate the usual setup, excercise and verify phases and group related statements. For example, using the BDD terminology:
#Test
public void should_Clear_Cached_Element() throws Exception {
given: {
elementStream = defaultStream();
elementStream.readElement();
Assume.assumeNotNull(elementStream.lastRead());
}
when:
elementStream.clearLast();
then:
assertThat(elementStream.lastRead()).isEmpty();
}
Your formatting choices may vary but the core idea is that labels, in this case, provide a noticeable distinction between the logical sections comprising your test, better than comments can. I think the Spock library just builds on this very feature to declare its test phases.

Personally whenever I need to use nested loops with the innermost one having to break out of all the parent loops, I just write everything in a method with a return statement when my condition is met, it's far more readable and logical.
Example Using method:
private static boolean exists(int[][] array, int searchFor) {
for (int[] nums : array) {
for (int num : nums) {
if (num == searchFor) {
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
Example Using label (less readable imo):
boolean exists = false;
existenceLoop:
for (int[] nums : array) {
for (int num : nums) {
if (num == searchFor) {
exists = true;
break existenceLoop;
}
}
}
return exists;