One use of the var keyword in C# is implicit type declaration. What is the Java equivalent syntax for var?
15 Answers
There is none. Alas, you have to type out the full type name.
Edit: 7 years after being posted, type inference for local variables (with var
) was added in Java 10.
Edit: 6 years after being posted, to collect some of the comments from below:
The reason C# has the
var
keyword is because it's possible to have Types that have no name in .NET. Eg:var myData = new { a = 1, b = "2" };
In this case, it would be impossible to give a proper type to
myData
. 6 years ago, this was impossible in Java (all Types had names, even if they were extremely verbose and unweildy). I do not know if this has changed in the mean time.var
is not the same asdynamic
.var
iables are still 100% statically typed. This will not compile:var myString = "foo"; myString = 3;
var
is also useful when the type is obvious from context. For example:var currentUser = User.GetCurrent();
I can say that in any code that I am responsible for,
currentUser
has aUser
or derived class in it. Obviously, if your implementation ofUser.GetCurrent
return an int, then maybe this is a detriment to you.This has nothing to do with
var
, but if you have weird inheritance hierarchies where you shadow methods with other methods (egnew public void DoAThing()
), don't forget that non-virtual methods are affected by the Type they are cast as.I can't imagine a real world scenario where this is indicative of good design, but this may not work as you expect:
class Foo { public void Non() {} public virtual void Virt() {} } class Bar : Foo { public new void Non() {} public override void Virt() {} } class Baz { public static Foo GetFoo() { return new Bar(); } } var foo = Baz.GetFoo(); foo.Non(); // <- Foo.Non, not Bar.Non foo.Virt(); // <- Bar.Virt var bar = (Bar)foo; bar.Non(); // <- Bar.Non, not Foo.Non bar.Virt(); // <- Still Bar.Virt
As indicated, virtual methods are not affected by this.
No, there is no non-clumsy way to initialize a
var
without an actual variable.var foo1 = "bar"; //good var foo2; //bad, what type? var foo3 = null; //bad, null doesn't have a type var foo4 = default(var); //what? var foo5 = (object)null; //legal, but go home, you're drunk
In this case, just do it the old fashioned way:
object foo6;
JEP - JDK Enhancement-Proposal
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/286
JEP 286: Local-Variable Type Inference
Author Brian Goetz
// Goals:
var list = new ArrayList<String>(); // infers ArrayList<String>
var stream = list.stream(); // infers Stream<String>
I have cooked up a plugin for IntelliJ that – in a way – gives you var
in Java. It's a hack, so the usual disclaimers apply, but if you use IntelliJ for your Java development and want to try it out, it's at https://bitbucket.org/balpha/varsity.
With the release of JDK 10 on March 20, Java now includes a var
reserved type name (not a keyword—see below) as specified in JEP 286. For local variables, the following is now valid in Java 10 or higher:
var map = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
The var
reserved type name in Java is nearly identical to the var
keyword in C# in that both allow for implicit typing (see below for important differences). var
in Java can only be used for implicit type inference in the following contexts (as enumerated in JEP 286: Goals):
- local variables with initializers
- indexes in the enhanced for-loop
- locals declared in a traditional for-loop
Therefore var
cannot be used for fields, return types, class names, or interface names. Its rationale is to remove the need for including long type names when declaring and defining local variables, as stated in JEP 286 (authored by Brian Goetz):
We seek to improve the developer experience by reducing the ceremony associated with writing Java code, while maintaining Java's commitment to static type safety, by allowing developers to elide the often-unnecessary manifest declaration of local variable types.
var
Scoping in Java
It should be noted that var
is not a keyword in Java, but rather a reserved type name. As quoted from JEP 286:
The identifier var is not a keyword; instead it is a reserved type name. This means that code that uses var as a variable, method, or package name will not be affected; code that uses var as a class or interface name will be affected (but these names are rare in practice, since they violate usual naming conventions).
Note that since var
is a reserved type name and not a keyword, it can still be used for package names, method names, and variable names (along with its new type-interference role). For example, the following are all examples of valid uses of var
in Java:
var i = 0;
var var = 1;
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) { /* ... */ }
public int var() { return 0; }
package var;
As quoted from JEP 286:
This treatment would be restricted to local variables with initializers, indexes in the enhanced for-loop, and locals declared in a traditional for-loop; it would not be available for method formals, constructor formals, method return types, fields, catch formals, or any other kind of variable declaration.
Differences Between var
in Java & C
This is one notable difference between var
in C# and Java include the following: var
can be used as a type name in C# but cannot be used as a class name or interface name in Java. According to the C# documentation (Implicitly Typed Local Variables):
If a type named
var
is in scope, then thevar
keyword will resolve to that type name and will not be treated as part of an implicitly typed local variable declaration.
The ability to use var
as a type name in C# creates some complexity and introduces some intricate resolution rules, which are avoided by var
in Java by disallowing var
as a class or interface name. For information on the complexities of var
type names in C#, see Restrictions apply to implicitly-typed variable declarations. For more information on the rationale behind the scoping decision for `var in Java, see JEP 286: Scoping Choices.
It will be supported in JDK 10. It's even possible to see it in action in the early access build.
The JEP 286:
Enhance the Java Language to extend type inference to declarations of local variables with initializers.
So now instead of writing:
List<> list = new ArrayList<String>();
Stream<> stream = myStream();
You write:
var list = new ArrayList<String>();
var stream = myStream();
Notes:
var
is now a reserved type name- Java is still commitment to static typing!
- It can be only used in local variable declarations
If you want to give it a try without installing Java on your local system, I created a Docker image with JDK 10 installed on it:
$ docker run -it marounbassam/ubuntu-java10 bash
root@299d86f1c39a:/# jdk-10/bin/jshell
Mar 30, 2018 9:07:07 PM java.util.prefs.FileSystemPreferences$1 run
INFO: Created user preferences directory.
| Welcome to JShell -- Version 10
| For an introduction type: /help intro
jshell> var list = new ArrayList<String>();
list ==> []
Java 10 did get local variable type inference, so now it has var
which is pretty much equivalent to the C# one (so far as I am aware).
It can also infer non-denotable types (types which couldn't be named in that place by the programmer; though which types are non-denotable is different). See e.g. Tricks with var
and anonymous classes (that you should never use at work).
The one difference I could find is that in C#,
In Java 10 var
is not a legal type name.
Lombok
supports var but it's still classified as experimental:
import lombok.experimental.var;
var number = 1; // Inferred type: int
number = 2; // Legal reassign since var is not final
number = "Hi"; // Compilation error since a string cannot be assigned to an int variable
System.out.println(number);
Here is a pitfall to avoid when trying to use it in IntelliJ IDEA
. It appears to work as expected though including auto completion and everything. Until there is a "non-hacky" solution (e.g. due to JEP 286: Local-Variable Type Inference), this might be your best bet right now.
Note that val
is support by Lombok
as well without modifying or creating a lombok.config
.
You can, in Java 10, but only for Local variables, meaning,
You can,
var anum = 10; var aString = "Var";
But can't,
var anull = null; // Since the type can't be inferred in this case
Check out the spec for more info.
In general you can use Object class for any type, but you have do type casting later!
eg:-
Object object = 12;
Object object1 = "Aditya";
Object object2 = 12.12;
System.out.println(Integer.parseInt(object.toString()) + 2);
System.out.println(object1.toString() + " Kumar");
System.out.println(Double.parseDouble(object2.toString()) + 2.12);
This feature is now available in Java SE 10. The static, type-safe var has finally made it into the java world :)
source: https://www.oracle.com/corporate/pressrelease/Java-10-032018.html
val
(orvar
) if you use a particular "Java replacement" language ;-) – user166390