Related
I was reading up on the std::string class in C++ and noticed there are quite a few different constructors available giving us a wide set of initialization features. This got me wondering how a compiler picks which constructor to choose when given parameters, or in the case of overloads, how a compiler matches a function signature with a given set of parameters.
If we have the following functions declared in pseudo-code:
function f1(int numberHere) {
//....do something
}
function f1(int numberHere, string stringHere) {
//....do something
}
And I decide to call f1(4), there are obviously two options to choose from, but what if there are 10000 options/signatures? Would it take proportionally longer? If so, what takes longer? Does the compiler have some sneaky O(n) way to index overloads such that it can call the right one in O(1) time once the program is running or would it compile in O(1) no matter how many overloads exist but take longer to run the finished result because of on-the-fly signature matching?
Can this question even be answered effectively?
Thanks!
Matching function signatures is actually not different from any other search or lookup problem. There are three basic ways to do it depending on the data structure you are storing the available function signatures in:
Use an unsorted list or array and get O(n) time complexity.
Use a sorted array or a tree-like structure and get O(log(n)). (You can sort by type of 1st argument, then 2nd and so on, assuming that each type has an integer id assigned to it.)
Use a hash map and get O(1).
But I doubt that time complxity has any practical relevance in this case. It describes the asymptotic behaviour of algorithms for large values of n. Even for n=100, an unsorted array search might be faster than hash map lookup because it has less overhead.
And from a usability point of view it is a very bad idea to design an API having functions with 10 or even 100 overloads.
In order to prevent memory leaks in ActionScript 3.0, i use a member vector in classes that have to work with vectors, for example:
public class A
{
private var mHelperPointVector:Vector.<Point> = new Vector.<Point>();
public static GetFirstData():Vector.<Point>
{
mHelperPointVector.length = 0;
....
return mHelperPointVector;
}
public static GetSecondData():Vector.<Point>
{
mHelperPointVector.length = 0;
....
return mHelperPointVector;
}
}
and then i have consumers who uses GetFirstData and GetSecondData methods, storing references to vectors returned by these methods, for example:
public function OnEnterFrame():void
{
var vector:Vector.<Point> = A.GetSecondData();
....
}
This trick seems to be good, but sometimes i need to process the vector returned by GetSecondData() after some period of time, and in this case, this vector becomes overwritten by another call to GetSecondData() or GetFirstData()...The solution is to copy vector to a new vector...but in this case is better to avoid this trick at all. How do you deal with these problems? I have to work with a big amount of vectors (each of length between 1-10).
The thing about garbage collection is just trying to avoid instantiating (and disposing of) as much as possible. It's hard to say what would be the best approach since I can't see how/why you're using your Vector data, but at first glance I think that with your approach you'll be constantly losing data (you're pretty much creating the equivalent of weak instances, since they can be easily overwritten) and changing the length of a Vector doesn't really avoid garbage collection (it may delay and reduce it, but you're still constantly throwing data away).
I frankly don't think you'd have memory leaks with point Vectors unless you're leaking the reference to the Vector left and right. In which case, it'd be better to fix these leftover references, rather than simply coming up with a solution to reuse the same vectors (which can have many more adverse effects).
However, if you're really concerned about memory, your best solution, I think, is either creating all vectors you need in advance (if it's a fixed number and you know their length ahead of time) or, better yet, using Object Pools. The latter would definitely be a more robust solution, but it requires some setup on your end, both by creating a Pool class and then when using it. To put it in code, once implemented, it would be used like this:
// Need a vector with length of 9
var myVector:Vector.<Point> = VectorPool.get(9);
// Use the vector for stuff
...
// Vector not needed anymore, put it back in the pool
VectorPool.put(myVector);
myVector = null; // just so it's clear we can't use it anymore
VectorPool would control the list of Vectors you have, letting other parts of your code "borrow" vectors as needed (in which they would be marked as being "used" inside the VectorPool) and give them back (marking them back as unused). Your code could also create vectors on the spot (inside get()), as needed, if no usable vectors are available within the list of unused objects; this would make it more flexible (not recommended in some cases since you're still spending time with instantiation, but probably negligible in this case).
This is a very macro explanation (you'd still have to write VectorPool), but object pools like that are believed to be the definitive solution to avoid re-instantiating as well as garbage collection of objects that are just going to be reused.
For reference, here's what I used as a very generic Object Pool:
https://github.com/zeh/as3/blob/master/com/zehfernando/data/ObjectPool.as
Or a more specialized one, that I use in situations when I need a bunch of throwaway BitmapData instances of similar sizes:
https://github.com/zeh/as3/blob/master/com/zehfernando/data/BitmapDataPool.as
I believe the implementation of a VectorPool class in the molds of what you need would be similar to the link above.
As a side note, if performance is a concern, I'd suggest using vectors of fixed length too, e.g.
// Create a vector of 9 items, filled with `nulls`
var myPoints:Vector.<Point> = new Vector.<Point>(9, true);
This makes it faster since you won't have micro allocations over time. You have to set the items directly, instead of using push():
myPoints[0] = new Point(0, 0);
But that's actually a forced advantage since setting the vector items is faster than push().
I've been interested in compiler/interpreter design/implementation for as long as I've been programming (only 5 years now) and it's always seemed like the "magic" behind the scenes that nobody really talks about (I know of at least 2 forums for operating system development, but I don't know of any community for compiler/interpreter/language development). Anyways, recently I've decided to start working on my own, in hopes to expand my knowledge of programming as a whole (and hey, it's pretty fun :). So, based off the limited amount of reading material I have, and Wikipedia, I've developed this concept of the components for a compiler/interpreter:
Source code -> Lexical Analysis -> Abstract Syntax Tree -> Syntactic Analysis -> Semantic Analysis -> Code Generation -> Executable Code.
(I know there's more to code generation and executable code, but I haven't gotten that far yet :)
And with that knowledge, I've created a very basic lexer (in Java) to take input from a source file, and output the tokens into another file. A sample input/output would look like this:
Input:
int a := 2
if(a = 3) then
print "Yay!"
endif
Output (from lexer):
INTEGER
A
ASSIGN
2
IF
L_PAR
A
COMP
3
R_PAR
THEN
PRINT
YAY!
ENDIF
Personally, I think it would be really easy to go from there to syntactic/semantic analysis, and possibly even code generation, which leads me to question: Why use an AST, when it seems that my lexer is doing just as good a job? However, 100% of my sources I use to research this topic all seem adamant that this is a necessary part of any compiler/interpreter. Am I missing the point of what an AST really is (a tree that shows the logical flow of a program)?
TL;DR: Currently in route to develop a compiler, finished the lexer, seems to me like the output would make for easy syntactic analysis/semantic analysis, rather than doing an AST. So why use one? Am I missing the point of one?
Thanks!
First off, one thing about your list of components does not make sense. Building an AST is (pretty much) the syntactic analysis, so it either shouldn't be in there, or at least come before the AST.
What you got there is a lexer. All it gives you are individual tokens. In any case, you will need an actual parser, because regular languages aren't any fun to program in. You can't even (properly) nest expressions. Heck, you can't even handle operator precedence. A token stream doesn't give you:
An idea where statements and expressions start and end.
An idea how statements are grouped into blocks.
An idea Which part of the expression has which precedence, associativity, etc.
A clear, uncluttered view at the actual structure of the program.
A structure which can be passed through a myriad of transformations, without every single pass knowing and having code to accomodate that the condition in an if is enclosed by parentheses.
... more generally, any kind of comprehension above the level of a single token.
Suppose you have two passes in your compiler which optimize certain kinds of operators applies to certain arguments (say, constant folding and algebraic simplifications like x - x -> 0). If you hand them tokens for the expression x - x * 1, these passes are cluttered with figuring out that the x * 1 part comes first. And they have to know that, lest the transformation is incorrect (consider 1 + 2 * 3).
These things are tricky enough to get right as it is, so you don't want to be pestered by parsing problems as well. That's why you solve the parsing problem first, in a separate parsing step. Then you can, say, replace a function call with its definition, without worrying about adding parenthesis so the meaning remains the same. You save time, you separate concerns, you avoid repetition, you enable simpler code in many other places, etc.
A parser figures all that out, and builds an AST which consequently holds all that information. Without any further data on the nodes, the shape of the AST alone gives you no. 1, 2, 3, and much more, for free. None of the bazillion passes that follow have to worry about it anymore.
That's not to say you always have to have an AST. For sufficiently simple languages, you can do a single-pass compiler. Instead of generating an AST or some other intermediate representation during parsing, you emit code as you go. However, this becomes harder for less simple languages and you can't reasonably do a lot of stuff (such as 70% of all optimizations and diagnostics -- and yes I just made that number up). Generally, I wouldn't advise you to do this. There are good reasons single-pass compilers are mostly dead. Even languages which permit them (e.g. C) are nowadays implemented with multiple passes and ASTs. It's a simple way to get started, but will severely limit you (and the language, if you design it) later.
You've got the AST at the wrong point in your flow diagram. Typically, the output of the lexer is a series of tokens (as you have in your output), and these are fed to the parser/syntactic analyzer, which generates the AST. So the output of your lexer is different from an AST because they are used at different points in the compilation process and fulfill different purposes.
The next logical question is: What, then, is an AST? Well, the purpose of parsing/syntactic analysis is to turn the series of tokens generated by the lexer into an AST (or parse tree). The AST is an intermediate representation that captures the relationship between syntactical elements in a way that is easier to work with programmatically. One way of thinking about this is that a text program is a one dimensional construct, and can only represent ideas as a sequence of elements, while the AST is freed from this constraint, and can represent the underlying relationships between those elements in 2 dimensions (as typically drawn), or any higher dimension space if you so choose to think about it that way.
For instance, a binary operator has two operands, let's call them A and B. In code, this may be spelled 'A * B' (assuming an infix operator - another advantage of an AST is to hide such distinctions that may be important syntactically, but not semantically), but for the compiler to "understand" this expression, it must read 5 characters sequentially, and this logic can quickly become cumbersome, given the many possibilities in even a small language. In an AST representation, however, we have a "binary operator" node whose value is '*', and that node has two children, values 'A' and 'B'.
As your compiler project progresses, I think you will begin to see the advantages of this representation.
It goes without saying that using hard-coded, hex literal pointers is a disaster:
int *i = 0xDEADBEEF;
// god knows if that location is available
However, what exactly is the danger in using hex literals as variable values?
int i = 0xDEADBEEF;
// what can go wrong?
If these values are indeed "dangerous" due to their use in various debugging scenarios, then this means that even if I do not use these literals, any program that during runtime happens to stumble upon one of these values might crash.
Anyone care to explain the real dangers of using hex literals?
Edit: just to clarify, I am not referring to the general use of constants in source code. I am specifically talking about debug-scenario issues that might come up to the use of hex values, with the specific example of 0xDEADBEEF.
There's no more danger in using a hex literal than any other kind of literal.
If your debugging session ends up executing data as code without you intending it to, you're in a world of pain anyway.
Of course, there's the normal "magic value" vs "well-named constant" code smell/cleanliness issue, but that's not really the sort of danger I think you're talking about.
With few exceptions, nothing is "constant".
We prefer to call them "slow variables" -- their value changes so slowly that we don't mind recompiling to change them.
However, we don't want to have many instances of 0x07 all through an application or a test script, where each instance has a different meaning.
We want to put a label on each constant that makes it totally unambiguous what it means.
if( x == 7 )
What does "7" mean in the above statement? Is it the same thing as
d = y / 7;
Is that the same meaning of "7"?
Test Cases are a slightly different problem. We don't need extensive, careful management of each instance of a numeric literal. Instead, we need documentation.
We can -- to an extent -- explain where "7" comes from by including a tiny bit of a hint in the code.
assertEquals( 7, someFunction(3,4), "Expected 7, see paragraph 7 of use case 7" );
A "constant" should be stated -- and named -- exactly once.
A "result" in a unit test isn't the same thing as a constant, and requires a little care in explaining where it came from.
A hex literal is no different than a decimal literal like 1. Any special significance of a value is due to the context of a particular program.
I believe the concern raised in the IP address formatting question earlier today was not related to the use of hex literals in general, but the specific use of 0xDEADBEEF. At least, that's the way I read it.
There is a concern with using 0xDEADBEEF in particular, though in my opinion it is a small one. The problem is that many debuggers and runtime systems have already co-opted this particular value as a marker value to indicate unallocated heap, bad pointers on the stack, etc.
I don't recall off the top of my head just which debugging and runtime systems use this particular value, but I have seen it used this way several times over the years. If you are debugging in one of these environments, the existence of the 0xDEADBEEF constant in your code will be indistinguishable from the values in unallocated RAM or whatever, so at best you will not have as useful RAM dumps, and at worst you will get warnings from the debugger.
Anyhow, that's what I think the original commenter meant when he told you it was bad for "use in various debugging scenarios."
There's no reason why you shouldn't assign 0xdeadbeef to a variable.
But woe betide the programmer who tries to assign decimal 3735928559, or octal 33653337357, or worst of all: binary 11011110101011011011111011101111.
Big Endian or Little Endian?
One danger is when constants are assigned to an array or structure with different sized members; the endian-ness of the compiler or machine (including JVM vs CLR) will affect the ordering of the bytes.
This issue is true of non-constant values, too, of course.
Here's an, admittedly contrived, example. What is the value of buffer[0] after the last line?
const int TEST[] = { 0x01BADA55, 0xDEADBEEF };
char buffer[BUFSZ];
memcpy( buffer, (void*)TEST, sizeof(TEST));
I don't see any problem with using it as a value. Its just a number after all.
There's no danger in using a hard-coded hex value for a pointer (like your first example) in the right context. In particular, when doing very low-level hardware development, this is the way you access memory-mapped registers. (Though it's best to give them names with a #define, for example.) But at the application level you shouldn't ever need to do an assignment like that.
I use CAFEBABE
I haven't seen it used by any debuggers before.
int *i = 0xDEADBEEF;
// god knows if that location is available
int i = 0xDEADBEEF;
// what can go wrong?
The danger that I see is the same in both cases: you've created a flag value that has no immediate context. There's nothing about i in either case that will let me know 100, 1000 or 10000 lines that there is a potentially critical flag value associated with it. What you've planted is a landmine bug that, if I don't remember to check for it in every possible use, I could be faced with a terrible debugging problem. Every use of i will now have to look like this:
if (i != 0xDEADBEEF) { // Curse the original designer to oblivion
// Actual useful work goes here
}
Repeat the above for all of the 7000 instances where you need to use i in your code.
Now, why is the above worse than this?
if (isIProperlyInitialized()) { // Which could just be a boolean
// Actual useful work goes here
}
At a minimum, I can spot several critical issues:
Spelling: I'm a terrible typist. How easily will you spot 0xDAEDBEEF in a code review? Or 0xDEADBEFF? On the other hand, I know that my compile will barf immediately on isIProperlyInitialised() (insert the obligatory s vs. z debate here).
Exposure of meaning. Rather than trying to hide your flags in the code, you've intentionally created a method that the rest of the code can see.
Opportunities for coupling. It's entirely possible that a pointer or reference is connected to a loosely defined cache. An initialization check could be overloaded to check first if the value is in cache, then to try to bring it back into cache and, if all that fails, return false.
In short, it's just as easy to write the code you really need as it is to create a mysterious magic value. The code-maintainer of the future (who quite likely will be you) will thank you.
I'm looking for a clear, concise and accurate answer.
Ideally as the actual answer, although links to good explanations welcome.
Boxed values are data structures that are minimal wrappers around primitive types*. Boxed values are typically stored as pointers to objects on the heap.
Thus, boxed values use more memory and take at minimum two memory lookups to access: once to get the pointer, and another to follow that pointer to the primitive. Obviously this isn't the kind of thing you want in your inner loops. On the other hand, boxed values typically play better with other types in the system. Since they are first-class data structures in the language, they have the expected metadata and structure that other data structures have.
In Java and Haskell generic collections can't contain unboxed values. Generic collections in .NET can hold unboxed values with no penalties. Where Java's generics are only used for compile-time type checking, .NET will generate specific classes for each generic type instantiated at run time.
Java and Haskell have unboxed arrays, but they're distinctly less convenient than the other collections. However, when peak performance is needed it's worth a little inconvenience to avoid the overhead of boxing and unboxing.
* For this discussion, a primitive value is any that can be stored on the call stack, rather than stored as a pointer to a value on the heap. Frequently that's just the machine types (ints, floats, etc), structs, and sometimes static sized arrays. .NET-land calls them value types (as opposed to reference types). Java folks call them primitive types. Haskellions just call them unboxed.
** I'm also focusing on Java, Haskell, and C# in this answer, because that's what I know. For what it's worth, Python, Ruby, and Javascript all have exclusively boxed values. This is also known as the "Everything is an object" approach***.
*** Caveat: A sufficiently advanced compiler / JIT can in some cases actually detect that a value which is semantically boxed when looking at the source, can safely be an unboxed value at runtime. In essence, thanks to brilliant language implementors your boxes are sometimes free.
from C# 3.0 In a Nutshell:
Boxing is the act of casting a value
type into a reference type:
int x = 9;
object o = x; // boxing the int
unboxing is... the reverse:
// unboxing o
object o = 9;
int x = (int)o;
Boxing & unboxing is the process of converting a primitive value into an object oriented wrapper class (boxing), or converting a value from an object oriented wrapper class back to the primitive value (unboxing).
For example, in java, you may need to convert an int value into an Integer (boxing) if you want to store it in a Collection because primitives can't be stored in a Collection, only objects. But when you want to get it back out of the Collection you may want to get the value as an int and not an Integer so you would unbox it.
Boxing and unboxing is not inherently bad, but it is a tradeoff. Depending on the language implementation, it can be slower and more memory intensive than just using primitives. However, it may also allow you to use higher level data structures and achieve greater flexibility in your code.
These days, it is most commonly discussed in the context of Java's (and other language's) "autoboxing/autounboxing" feature. Here is a java centric explanation of autoboxing.
In .Net:
Often you can't rely on what the type of variable a function will consume, so you need to use an object variable which extends from the lowest common denominator - in .Net this is object.
However object is a class and stores its contents as a reference.
List<int> notBoxed = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3 };
int i = notBoxed[1]; // this is the actual value
List<object> boxed = new List<object> { 1, 2, 3 };
int j = (int) boxed[1]; // this is an object that can be 'unboxed' to an int
While both these hold the same information the second list is larger and slower. Each value in the second list is actually a reference to an object that holds the int.
This is called boxed because the int is wrapped by the object. When its cast back the int is unboxed - converted back to it's value.
For value types (i.e. all structs) this is slow, and potentially uses a lot more space.
For reference types (i.e. all classes) this is far less of a problem, as they are stored as a reference anyway.
A further problem with a boxed value type is that it's not obvious that you're dealing with the box, rather than the value. When you compare two structs then you're comparing values, but when you compare two classes then (by default) you're comparing the reference - i.e. are these the same instance?
This can be confusing when dealing with boxed value types:
int a = 7;
int b = 7;
if(a == b) // Evaluates to true, because a and b have the same value
object c = (object) 7;
object d = (object) 7;
if(c == d) // Evaluates to false, because c and d are different instances
It's easy to work around:
if(c.Equals(d)) // Evaluates to true because it calls the underlying int's equals
if(((int) c) == ((int) d)) // Evaluates to true once the values are cast
However it is another thing to be careful of when dealing with boxed values.
Boxing is the process of conversion of a value type into a reference type. Whereas Unboxing is the conversion of a reference type into a value type.
EX: int i = 123;
object o = i;// Boxing
int j = (int)o;// UnBoxing
Value Types are: int, char and structures, enumerations.
Reference Types are:
Classes,interfaces,arrays,strings and objects
The language-agnostic meaning of a box is just "an object contains some other value".
Literally, boxing is an operation to put some value into the box. More specifically, it is an operation to create a new box containing the value. After boxing, the boxed value can be accessed from the box object, by unboxing.
Note that objects (not OOP-specific) in many programming languages are about identities, but values are not. Two objects are same iff. they have identities not distinguishable in the program semantics. Values can also be the same (usually under some equality operators), but we do not distinguish them as "one" or "two" unique values.
Providing boxes is mainly about the effort to distinguish side effects (typically, mutation) from the states on the objects otherwise probably invisible to the users.
A language may limit the allowed ways to access an object and hide the identity of the object by default. For example, typical Lisp dialects has no explicit distinctions between objects and values. As a result, the implementation has the freedom to share the underlying storage of the objects until some mutation operations occurs on the object (so the object must be "detached" after the operation from the shared instance to make the effect visible, i.e. the mutated value stored in the object could be different than the other objects having the old value). This technique is sometimes called object interning.
Interning makes the program more memory efficient at runtime if the objects are shared without frequent needs of mutation, at the cost that:
The users cannot distinguish the identity of the objects.
There are no way to identify an object and to ensure it has states explicitly independent to other objects in the program before some side effects have actually occur (and the implementation does not aggressively to do the interning concurrently; this should be the rare case, though).
There may be more problems on interoperations which require to identify different objects for different operations.
There are risks that such assumptions can be false, so the performance is actually made worse by applying the interning.
This depends on the programming paradigm. Imperative programming which mutates objects frequently certainly would not work well with interning.
Implementations depending on COW (copy-on-write) to ensure interning can incur serious performance degradation in concurrent environments.
Even local sharing specifically for a few internal data structures can be bad. For example, ISO C++ 11 did not allow sharing of the internal elements of std::basic_string for this reason exactly, even at the cost of breaking the ABI on at least one mainstream implementation (libstdc++).
Boxing and unboxing incur performance penalties. This is obvious especially when these operations can be naively avoided by hand but actually not easy for the optimizer. The concrete measurement of the cost depends (on per-implementation or even per-program basis), though.
Mutable cells, i.e. boxes, are well-established facilities exactly to resolve the problems of the 1st and 2nd bullets listed above. Additionally, there can be immutable boxes for implementation of assignment in a functional language. See SRFI-111 for a practical instance.
Using mutable cells as function arguments with call-by-value strategy implements the visible effects of mutation being shared between the caller and the callee. The object contained by an box is effectively "called by shared" in this sense.
Sometimes, the boxes are referred as references (which is technically false), so the shared semantics are named "reference semantics". This is not correct, because not all references can propagate the visible side effects (e.g. immutable references). References are more about exposing the access by indirection, while boxes are the efforts to expose minimal details of the accesses like whether indirection or not (which is uninterested and better avoided by the implementation).
Moreover, "value semantic" is irrelevant here. Values are not against to references, nor to boxes. All the discussions above are based on call-by-value strategy. For others (like call-by-name or call-by-need), no boxes are needed to shared object contents in this way.
Java is probably the first programming language to make these features popular in the industry. Unfortunately, there seem many bad consequences concerned in this topic:
The overall programming paradigm does not fit the design.
Practically, the interning are limited to specific objects like immutable strings, and the cost of (auto-)boxing and unboxing are often blamed.
Fundamental PL knowledge like the definition of the term "object" (as "instance of a class") in the language specification, as well as the descriptions of parameter passing, are biased compared to the the original, well-known meaning, during the adoption of Java by programmers.
At least CLR languages are following the similar parlance.
Some more tips on implementations (and comments to this answer):
Whether to put the objects on the call stacks or the heap is an implementation details, and irrelevant to the implementation of boxes.
Some language implementations do not maintain a contiguous storage as the call stack.
Some language implementations do not even make the (per thread) activation records a linear stack.
Some language implementations do allocate stacks on the free store ("the heap") and transfer slices of frames between the stacks and the heap back and forth.
These strategies has nothing to do boxes. For instance, many Scheme implementations have boxes, with different activation records layouts, including all the ways listed above.
Besides the technical inaccuracy, the statement "everything is an object" is irrelevant to boxing.
Python, Ruby, and JavaScript all use latent typing (by default), so all identifiers referring to some objects will evaluate to values having the same static type. So does Scheme.
Some JavaScript and Ruby implementations use the so-called NaN-boxing to allow inlining allocation of some objects. Some others (including CPython) do not. With NaN boxing, a normal double object needs no unboxing to access its value, while a value of some other types can be boxed in a host double object, and there is no reference for double or the boxed value. With the naive pointer approach, a value of host object pointer like PyObject* is an object reference holding a box whose boxed value is stored in the dynamically allocated space.
At least in Python, objects are not "everything". They are also not known as "boxed values" unless you are talking about interoperability with specific implementations.
The .NET FCL generic collections:
List<T>
Dictionary<TKey, UValue>
SortedDictionary<TKey, UValue>
Stack<T>
Queue<T>
LinkedList<T>
were all designed to overcome the performance issues of boxing and unboxing in previous collection implementations.
For more, see chapter 16, CLR via C# (2nd Edition).
Boxing and unboxing facilitates value types to be treated as objects. Boxing means converting a value to an instance of the object reference type. For example, Int is a class and int is a data type. Converting int to Int is an exemplification of boxing, whereas converting Int to int is unboxing. The concept helps in garbage collection, Unboxing, on the other hand, converts object type to value type.
int i=123;
object o=(object)i; //Boxing
o=123;
i=(int)o; //Unboxing.
Like anything else, autoboxing can be problematic if not used carefully. The classic is to end up with a NullPointerException and not be able to track it down. Even with a debugger. Try this:
public class TestAutoboxNPE
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Integer i = null;
// .. do some other stuff and forget to initialise i
i = addOne(i); // Whoa! NPE!
}
public static int addOne(int i)
{
return i + 1;
}
}