The 'new' Keyword

**TheSlowLearner** · August 2nd, 2012, 09:06 PM

Hi, this is my first time posting on this forum so I'm sorry if this isn't the right place for this topic. If it isn't the right place, please tell me where a better place might have been. Also, if this topic has been done before, I'm sorry, I didn't see it.

Anyways, I have many questions on the 'new' keyword. I googled it to try to understand more and I learned that it is used to create a new instance of a class (which I pretty much already knew) as well as it allocates memory for the object to be stored in (which I didn't know, but I now understand).

So now to get to the questions. What would you have if you created a variable to store an object, but never used the 'new' keyword to set aside memory for it? For instance:

public class Example {
    public static void main (String[] args) {
        Object object;
    }
}

I suppose what I'm asking is what could that variable do, or is it useless? Could it be used in a method or is it just a useless line of code giving a name to reference that technically references nothing? Sorry if this is kind of vague or hard to understand. I'm just trying to figure out what this all means so I can better understand what it is I'm doing.

Thanks in advance for any help.

**aussiemcgr** · August 2nd, 2012, 09:44 PM

The variable would be set to null, meaning it has not been initialized. If you attempted to invoke any methods on the variable (such as the toString() method), a Null Pointer Exception will be thrown at runtime and, if you do not explicitly handle the exception, your entire program will crash. You will probably become very intimate with Null Pointer Exceptions, we all get them on a regular basis.

**helloworld922** · August 2nd, 2012, 11:06 PM

To clarify aussiemcgr's answer, the variable is kind of set to null. The java compiler is smart enough to recognize here that object has never been initialized and will by default throw a compile error. You can specify more strictly that you do intend to have the variable initialized to the default value (null).

Object object = null;

Note that explicit initialization is not required for non-local variables (for example object fields or static class fields).

**elamre** · August 3rd, 2012, 12:17 PM

So there is no difference between Object object; and Object object = null?

**aussiemcgr** · August 3rd, 2012, 12:53 PM

nope, it's the same thing, but that's only because Objects are set to null when not initialized. The same is not true for primitives like ints and doubles. For ints, these two are the same:

//this:
int variable;
//is the same as:
int variable = 0;

**TheSlowLearner** · August 3rd, 2012, 11:13 PM

Thanks for all the answers everyone.
So, just to be sure I understand: without initializing the object it has a 'null' value and any attempt to call methods on it will result in a 'null pointer error' which could crash your program.
Just a couple more questions. Does the object exist before it is initialized? Or does declaring it just create a reference or something without creating the object itself?

**TheSlowLearner** · August 3rd, 2012, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by helloworld922

Note that explicit initialization is not required for non-local variables (for example object fields or static class fields).

Just wondering, what does this mean exactly? Could you give an example? For some reason I just can't picture what you're saying.

**helloworld922** · August 3rd, 2012, 11:39 PM

So, just to be sure I understand: without initializing the object it has a 'null' value and any attempt to call methods on it will result in a 'null pointer error' which could crash your program.
Just a couple more questions. Does the object exist before it is initialized? Or does declaring it just create a reference or something without creating the object itself?

No object is created, it is simply a floating reference.

Just wondering, what does this mean exactly? Could you give an example? For some reason I just can't picture what you're saying.

public class Test
{
    public Object o1;
    public static Object o2;
 
    public static void main(String[] args)
    {
        Object o3 = null;
 
    }
}

Neither o1 or o2 need to explicitly initialized to null before being used. However, o3 does need to be explicitly set to null before use.

**pbrockway2** · August 4th, 2012, 12:04 AM

Think of variables as like road signs that point somewhere.

If and when you say "o3=new Object();" the assignment with = is like banging that sign into the ground so that it points towards the newly created object.

null is a special value that signs have when they don't point anywhere. (They are still in the truck.) o1 and o2 are like that: they are assumed to be "still in the truck" - they have the value null.

o3 which appears in a method is different. The compiler demands you say where it is pointing. For example you can say "o3=new Object();" but you are also allowed to say "o3=null" if you really mean to say "not pointing anywhere yet". I think Java adopts this rule to keep you from making the mistake of thinking a variable points somewhere when it really doesn't.

**wrightkevin** · August 4th, 2012, 07:59 AM

All you have done is declared a local variable (which ought to point to something but doesnt). I disagree with a previous answer stating it is set to null. Because your reference is local it does not receive a default value. What is it set to? Well probably garbage but we dont really know because any attempt to read its
contents will result in a compiler errorl

Any attempt to read it or call a method on it it will probably result in some kind of "may not have been initalized" error.

Say instead you had a call like:

Object o = new Object();

This will give you two constructs: One a reference called o (think of it as a very small thing , basically an address), but you will also get a much larger object (which is anonymous). Imagine a small marble (the reference pointing to a globe) the object.

**TheSlowLearner** · August 6th, 2012, 03:57 PM

Ok, I hope these are my last questions. I just want to be sure I understand fully.

Why would you ever WANT an object to be set to null? Would you set an object to null if you wanted it to be initialized later based on the results of a method or something?

Also, why is it different declaring objects within the main method like that? Is there a reason for that or did the makers of Java want to help avoid a specific problem by forcing you to actually specify 'null'? If so, what problem were they trying to avoid?

**TheSlowLearner** · August 6th, 2012, 04:09 PM

public class ObjectInitialization {
	Object object1;
	static Object object2;
 
	public static void main(String[] args) {
		Object object3;
	}
}

I tried this in Eclipse. I got no errors. I thought it wasn't supposed to work. <_<

**pbrockway2** · August 6th, 2012, 04:21 PM

This is a new question with nothing to do with the keyword.

Start a new thread to ask it.

**aussiemcgr** · August 6th, 2012, 04:26 PM

What errors?

You would want to set an object to null, for example, if you wanted to be accessible by the entire class, but only initialized after a certain event or something occurs. You could have a check to see if it has been initialized or not by check if the object is null.

As a rather silly and impractical example, something like this can show what null can do:

public static void main(String[] args) {
	Object obj = null;
	int result = 0;
	//Loop 10 times
	for(int i=0;i<10;i++) {
		//From the fifth iteration and after, obj will be initalized 
		if(i==4)
			obj = new Object();
		//Only increment result if obj is not null
		if(obj!=null)
			result++;
	}
	System.out.println("Result: "+result); //Would return "Result: 6"
}

That is obviously pretty pointless code, and that sort of behavior should probably be done with a boolean instead of an object, but it does show how having an object set to null can change how a program works.

**helloworld922** · August 6th, 2012, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by TheSlowLearner

public class ObjectInitialization {
	Object object1;
	static Object object2;
 
	public static void main(String[] args) {
		Object object3;
	}
}

I tried this in Eclipse. I got no errors. I thought it wasn't supposed to work. <_<

That's to be expected. The reasoning is this:

If you create a variable and never use it, it's not necessarily a problem. It's not exactly useful, but there are uses for allowing this to happen. For example, some people like to incrementally program/debug their program so they may declare all the variables they are expecting to use but not use them yet.

ex.:

public static void main(String[] args)
{
    Scanner reader = new Scanner(System.in);
    // ask for name
    String name;
    System.out.println("what's your name?");
    name = reader.nextLine();
 
    System.out.println("hello, " + name);
    // ask or age
    int age;
}

While simplistic, this example should run and the programmer can test to ensure that the code works.

However, let's say now continue to implement the code.

public static void main(String[] args)
{
    Scanner reader = new Scanner(System.in);
    // ask for name
    String name;
    System.out.println("what's your name?");
    name = reader.nextLine();
 
    System.out.println("hello, " + name);
    // ask or age
    int age;
    System.out.println("what's your age?");
    if(age > 80)
    {
        System.out.println("you're an octagenarian.")
    }
    else
    {
        System.out.println("you're still a young'n.")
    }
}

This code will cause the compiler to complain. In this case, the programmer had forgotten to actually ask the user for their age. The compiler can catch this and will tell you.

**jps** · August 6th, 2012, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by TheSlowLearner

public class ObjectInitialization {
	Object object1;
	static Object object2;
 
	public static void main(String[] args) {
		Object object3;
	}
}

I tried this in Eclipse. I got no errors. I thought it wasn't supposed to work. <_<

That is because there is nothing wrong with the code, AS IS. Do like helloworld922 said, and try to USE the object3, and that is a different story. Code below.

Originally Posted by pbrockway2

This is a new question with nothing to do with the keyword.

Start a new thread to ask it.

This has everything to do with this thread, as it is a headbutt with a reply.

public class ObjectInitialization {
	Object object1;
	static Object object2;
 
	public static void main(String[] args) {
		Object object3;
 
                if(object1 == null){}//compile error:
                	//Cannot make a static reference to the non-static field object1
                if(object2 == null){}//ok, but see notes below..
                if(object3 == null){}//compile error:
                	//The local variable object3 may not have been initialized
	}
}

Simply declaring a variable is like walking into a store and grabbing an empty shopping cart. You now have a place to store something.
When you use the new keyword it is like putting something in the cart.
Try walking up to the cashier with an empty basket and ask what you owe. If you want to access the price of an item (or any other field) you have to put an object in the box first.

While you may be able to avoid initialization, as in object2, you shouldn't. There are times you could forget to init a variable, (or just skip it), and just as luck would have it, what ever garbage in that memory location turns out to be suitable your code's needs. Now you have a bug you did not find, and will see eventually. (usually after your assignment is turned in)
If you initialize all of your variables you remove the possibility of ever having the error, and you always know what is inside. If you want to check vs null, assign a null value on init. If you need an object later, assign it later. There is no rule that says you can not initialize all of your variables, so why not make sure to overwrite any memory garbage with a definition as you declare each variable. ....keep in mind primitive types (including String) have their own defaults...

**TheSlowLearner** · August 7th, 2012, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by jps

That is because there is nothing wrong with the code, AS IS. Do like helloworld922 said, and try to USE the object3, and that is a different story. Code below.

This has everything to do with this thread, as it is a headbutt with a reply.

public class ObjectInitialization {
	Object object1;
	static Object object2;
 
	public static void main(String[] args) {
		Object object3;
 
                if(object1 == null){}//compile error:
                	//Cannot make a static reference to the non-static field object1
                if(object2 == null){}//ok, but see notes below..
                if(object3 == null){}//compile error:
                	//The local variable object3 may not have been initialized
	}
}

Simply declaring a variable is like walking into a store and grabbing an empty shopping cart. You now have a place to store something.
When you use the new keyword it is like putting something in the cart.
Try walking up to the cashier with an empty basket and ask what you owe. If you want to access the price of an item (or any other field) you have to put an object in the box first.

While you may be able to avoid initialization, as in object2, you shouldn't. There are times you could forget to init a variable, (or just skip it), and just as luck would have it, what ever garbage in that memory location turns out to be suitable your code's needs. Now you have a bug you did not find, and will see eventually. (usually after your assignment is turned in)
If you initialize all of your variables you remove the possibility of ever having the error, and you always know what is inside. If you want to check vs null, assign a null value on init. If you need an object later, assign it later. There is no rule that says you can not initialize all of your variables, so why not make sure to overwrite any memory garbage with a definition as you declare each variable. ....keep in mind primitive types (including String) have their own defaults...

Thanks. This helped me understand.

**TheSlowLearner** · August 7th, 2012, 12:05 AM

Thanks to everyone who helped. This is now a solved question.

Thread: The 'new' Keyword

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

The 'new' Keyword

Related threads:

Re: The 'new' Keyword

The Following User Says Thank You to aussiemcgr For This Useful Post:

Re: The 'new' Keyword

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to helloworld922 For This Useful Post:

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

The Following User Says Thank You to jps For This Useful Post:

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Re: The 'new' Keyword

Similar Threads

Super Keyword

Java classes and the 'new' word

quick question - new keyword

keyword Extends

How to highlight search keyword in text?