thick python
Why do we have these two names? (fields and attributes) They seem to do the exact same thing.
Is there a subtle difference between the two?
For example a function and a method. I have some heard people say they are the exact same thing, but there is one key difference: a function is global, hence no functions in Java, only methods, since everything in encapsulated inside of a class.
Is there some difference like this to fields and attributes?
feral agateBOT
⌛ This post has been reserved for your question.
Hey @thick python! Please use
/closeor theClose Postbutton above when your problem is solved. Please remember to follow the help guidelines. This post will be automatically closed after 300 minutes of inactivity.
TIP: Narrow down your issue to simple and precise questions to maximize the chance that others will reply in here.
mental tinsel
“attributes” dont exist
it’s just fields
of which there are instance fields and static fields
boreal musk
“attributes” dont exist
it's just a synonym for fields
thick python
of which there are instance fields and static fields
ty, do you have to define both of these in the class itself?
mental tinsel
yes
thick python
color can be unique for each house
but streetstyle is shared, for all house objects, so it's static
mental tinsel
correct
thick python
and you cannot declare these elsewhere
they have to be in the className {}
you can create new instance based fields within each object
but you cannot change static fields, correct?
per each object
is there a word for this? "create new instance based field"? i don't think I am changing, I am making a new property for the object, based on the data type of the instance based field "String color" above
in other words, if you do this:
Neighborhood.streetStyle = "Classic";
for a static field
are you allowed to do that within the object itself?
or for static, there is only one, and that is always defined in ClassName{}, in this case Neighborhood class
so if there are no unique neighborhoods for each house object, since it is static, couldn't you just do this?
class Neighborhood { static String streetStyle = "Classic"; }
hmmm, so what's the point of doing it this way?
seems like extra work
gleaming field
per each object
There's no such thing. Static fields are per class. And static fields that aren't final are rarely useful.
thick python
There's no such thing. Static fields are per class. And static fields that aren'...
So if you declare a field in class body, it’s instance based by default?
And if you want it to be class based field, you have to declare the field as static
Why did Java decide on the wording “static”? It seems like an odd word to use
boreal musk
regarding your first two messages: yes
regarding the latter: There's also a keyword named static in C++ which does something a bit similar
mental tinsel
regarding the latter: There's also a keyword named `static` in C++ which does so...
eh
it has other uses in c++
thick python
regarding the latter: There's also a keyword named `static` in C++ which does so...
So Java uses “static” for class based fields, because C++ does the same? Still not sure why they decided on “static” for this particular word. Also, most other languages use “const” but Java uses “final”. Just a bit confused on their rational for these word choices
boreal musk
So Java uses “static” for class based fields, because C++ does the same? Still n...
I didn't say C++ would do the same thing
just somewhat similar
thick python
Is that why Java uses static?
boreal musk
regardng final - there is a difference between const and final
boreal musk
Is that why Java uses static?
I guess so
thick python
regardng final - there is a difference between const and final
I thought they were the same thing
boreal musk
after all, they wanted to make Java easy for C++ developers
thick python
I thought they were the same thing
A variable you can’t change
boreal musk
I thought they were the same thing
assume you have this class
class A{
int i;
}
then you can do
final A a = new A();
a.i = 1337;
but you cannot do
final A a = new A();
//a=new A();//doesn't work because a is final
I think const (at least with structs in C) doesn't allow that
thick python
assume you have this class
```java
class A{
int i;
}
```
then you can do
```ja...
These are the same, what did you change?
boreal musk
These are the same, what did you change?
?
what do you mean with the same
once you change a.i and once you reassign a
thick python
you can do
final A a = new A();
but you cannot do
final A a = new A();
look at the second line
the second line in both pieces of code is what is different
the a=new A(); is what isn't possible
boreal musk
the variable already exists
it works the same for primitives
int i = 13;//create the variable
i = 37;//reassign the variable
I didn’t know this was possible for objects. Why would you want to make a new one with same name when the object has already been created?
boreal musk
A a = new A();
a=new A();
this would work
thick python
```java
A a = new A();
a=new A();
```
this would work
Why would you do this? Just curious
I don’t understand the reason for it
a has already been initialized
So why make a new object of same class with same variable name?
mental tinsel
So why make a new object of same class with same variable name?
clearing the state saved in it, for example
thick python
Oh
Even if the object “a” was initialized as final
Couldn’t you reset each attribute for the object “a”?
boreal musk
Why would you do this? Just curious
you might want to put some new object there
or maybe you cannot change the state of the object because it doesn't allow you to do so (e.g. the fields are final)
or maybe the same object is used somewhere else