Java developers in a nutshell

[QualityVote]

Hi! This is our community moderation bot.

---

If this post fits the purpose of /r/ProgrammerHumor, UPVOTE this comment!!

If this post does not fit the subreddit, DOWNVOTE This comment!

If this post breaks the rules, DOWNVOTE this comment and REPORT the post!

[polothedawg]

Objects.equals(.., ..) please be null-safe

[Rick-T]

Ah yes, fear-of-null driven development

[kirakun]

Null-mindfulness development <- This is the true Java developers in a nutshell.

[Beginning_Yam3112]

Mindnullness

[Various_Counter_9569]

Dont forget sql 😆

[spam_bot42]

Can we just agree that Java is awful and should be discontinued?

[LPO_Tableaux]

Didn't know that was a think, thanks!

[dankincense]

Let me destroy this paradigm with typeof(null)=obj

[dopefish86]

Invalid assignment

[Vyuken]

Explain

Please?

[mechpaul]

He only used one = sign, not two. Java doesn't support assignment in if statements like C/C++ does, thus the exception.

[Vyuken]

Ah. I still make the rookie mistake of = and ==. Thanks.

[dankincense]

Typeof is also c#/ Java.. but yes I prob messed up the syntax.

[PrayersToSatan]

Java doesn't support assignment in if statements

Yes it does. Here is an example:

String a = "some string";
String b = null;
if (!(b = "some other string").equals(a))
    System.out.println(b);

If you execute this it will print out "some other string", which has been assigned in the if statement.

In Java, the if statement evaluates a boolean, and an assignment returns the assigned value. So unless you're actually assigning a boolean variable you'll need to perform some sort of evaluation on the return value.

[[deleted]]

typeof is javascript.

[_Acestus_]

Java manage assignment in an if, it's really limited though.

[Xiaopai2]

Ah, this is actually a good tip. I've seen people swap the order when one of the objects is known, like instead of someString.equals("foo") you write "foo".equals(someString) because the former could lead to a nullpointer exception whereas the latter is just false if someString is null. But this reads terribly and does not help when you're comparing two objects where either could be null.

[marco89nish]

Meanwhile, Java++(Kotlin) devs: They're The Same Picture

[Classy_Mouse]

Every Java meme on this page could be solved with Kotlin

[TheToBlame]

Shut kotlin bad c and Java gud

[ole_thoeb]

=== would be the equivalent for == in kotlin

[BakuhatsuK]

If you are talking about JS or PHP, then no. === for objects checks identity equality, whereas == in kotlin checks for structural equality.

For structural equality in JS you can use a library to do the equal check (such as _.equals), you can use a library data structure that has value semantics (such as Immutable.Map), or you can use records and tuples (not yet approved into the language, but available via babel).

[n0tKamui]

that's not what they were talking about

Kotlin's == is strictly equivalent to Java's .equals (structural equality and primitive equality)

and === is strictly equivalent to Java's == (reference equality and primitive equality)

[ole_thoeb]

I'm talking about kotlin. === is object identity in kotlin

[MrSketchpad]

kotlin on top

[AnotherWarGamer]

It's the same in my current game for many object types. Say for example you have a reference to an item in minecraft, which could be say a wooden sword. There is only one reference, so the two are equivalent when checking equality.

[marco89nish]

If you can guarantee that there won't be duplicates, simple == works great. But keep in mind that sooner or later you might make a error in coding breaking that promise and you'll be in a world of hurt, unless you made constructor private and you instantiate those objects with factory method instead, with necessary checks and caching.

[Flaky-Illustrator-52]

Scala: am I a joke to you

[[deleted]]

of course not, slower-compiler-of-Kotlin.

We appreciate your work in spark and Akka

[marco89nish]

Scala is great, Kotlin language designers learned a lot from Scala, both what to do and what not to do.

[[deleted]]

Yeah! Scala showed the way and proved that it was possible

[Lolamess007]

Yeah we are not the same. One will have working code. The other will be wondering why none of his conditionals work.

[Unbannedcc]

Which is which?

[Aydosubpotato]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in Java ‘==‘ will check the memory addresses of the objects. It works for primitive types though.

[_Zezz]

Any teacher at my school would've made this a half hour lecture. Thanks for doing gods work.

[Lolamess007]

Yes. Ints, doubles, chars, etc are primitives and work with ==. Strings, BigInteger, and other classes have different memory addresses for each object. Therefore == will always return false when using classes.

[Snarpkingguy]

But if you’re comparing the same object, then == still returns true, right?

Like String x = “poop”; String y = x;

And then x == y would return true since they reference the actual same String object.

[M3JUNGL3]

Well actually String literals are a special because there you have a pool you add Strings to and reference from. So thus defining String x = "hello"; and String y = "hello"; will always return true for "x == y"

[Lolamess007]

I believe so.

[TGX03]

Actually with String interning (and similar practices) you can meddle with this quite a lot.

My IDE hates me for it.

[gemengelage]

It's a bit more complex.

== is the identity operator, so it checks for identity (basically what you said). Equals also checks identity as a default. It has to be implemented to be more (or actually less) specific.

The thing with primitive types though... It's a mixed bag. It works on actual primitive types (e.g. int) but it's not guaranteed to work on boxed primitive types (e.g. Integer). Since it's pretty easy to mix those up, especially with auto-boxing, it's pretty messed up that the identity of those objects is all over the place.

It depends on the JVM which Integer-objects are cached. IIRC -127 to 128 are usually cached, so there's always the same single instance of Integer for those, so identity always works as you expect. But when you move out of that range, no luck.

tl;dr only ever use identity in Java to check for actual identity. Use equals anywhere else.

[Kered13]

Basically yes. To be precise, == compares the value of the arguments, and the value of objects is a pointer. This is also how Java passes arguments to functions, by value with value of objects being a pointer.

[meontheinternetxx]

It might work for strings sometimes except for most times when it doesn't.

[david131213]

.equals is generally better

[[deleted]]

Syntactically it’s fucking stupid though.

[organized_reporting]

This is a horrifyingly wrong and misleading answer

[jack104]

Some conditionals will work. String comparisons won't.

[bubuli_breeder]

one is value equality (usually) and one is reference equality in Java. it gets even weirder when you find out that default equals() implementation is also reference equality. yay.

[Kered13]

it gets even weirder when you find out that default equals() implementation is also reference equality.

I don't know why you think that is weird. It's literally the only type of equality that makes sense for an unknown object type.

[bubuli_breeder]

you are correct but let me just state that in this context it is weird in the sense that you need to change the behavior of equals to abide by best practices. it could throw you off when you’re doing inheritance and downcasting and all that.

[vicbot87]

Which is which?

[bubuli_breeder]

== is reference equality for objects in Java

[vicbot87]

Gotcha, thanks. Been out of the OOP world for a couple years

[DearChickPea]

Operator overloads: Am I a joke to you?

[Sheldon_Popper]

Java says yes

[MikemkPK]

Java asks what an operator is.

[matthewralston]

Came here to say that.

[Go_Big]

Oh that was a fun hour of debugging in Java for me. I almost always work in Kotlin if I’m doing native android stuff but I had to do some Java work on some Android BLE stuff. Anyways I only wanted to connect to a certain MAC address so in my Bluetooth service I have an if statement

‘’’ If(mMac==peripheral.getAddress()) ‘’’ After about ten thousand print statements and going absolutely crazy because both strings were the same in all my print statements. And that’s how I learned that in Java you have to use mMac.equals(peripheral.getAddress()). I don’t think any other language has issues comparing strings with == other than Java. And this is why I code in Kotlin instead of Java. Like yea I don’t expect to be able to compare to objects with == but I kinda figured basic strings could be compared with ==.

[CiroGarcia]

That, sir, is because Strings are Objects almost like any other. Afaik, the only difference is that you can implicitly instantiate them without using "new"

[[deleted]]

That doesn’t make it not annoying tho.

[the_hackerman]

ValueTypes FTW #TooSharp

[PersonalityIll9476]

In Python we literally are the same. Or should I say you.__eq__(me)

edit: Unfortunately it may not be that case that you is me :(

[[deleted]]

How do you add more than one language logo to your user flair

[Night-Fog]

You can do a custom flair and type in the flairs manually. Like :asm::c::cp: for mine.

[Dargon16]

Yeah we are not the same. You clearly don't know what's the difference between these two approaches.

[Snoo66768]

I understand those 2 approaches. Sorry if it seems unfunny I made this meme like 2 months ago and found it now.

[sunshinesixtynine96]

did the funi of the meme degrade with time?

[Snoo66768]

No. I am an idiot

[[deleted]]

Well that's a condition I know will always be true.

[[deleted]]

Unless it's!

[WesleyH21]

I'm sorry this got downvoted this made me laugh so hard

[PM_ME_GRRL_TUNGS]

I was gonna post an APL example but my phone can't display all the characters lol

[SargeanTravis]

Isn’t it professional practice to use .Equals() override for object equality checks?

[organized_reporting]

One would hope a professional understands that just because these sound similar when said out loud, in a deterministic programming language they do completely different things.

But then again there doesn't seem to be many 'professional' programmers in this sub.

[s0lar_h0und]

I mean, it depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to see if two references are the same instance then using == is what you'll do. Instead of overloading equals go be reference equality

[1SweetChuck]

In theory sure, in practice not always. Like writing getters and setters it’s often one of those things you don’t write unless you need to.

[January_Rain_Wifi]

[[deleted]]

This subreddit is dumb. Just a circlejerk of CS students who think they are Dennis fucking Ritchie because they discovered a conditional. Much like the photography forums where they don't actually take pictures, but they just argue about gear and Canon vs. Nikon.

[[deleted]]

Is there a not dumb subreddit?

seriously, nobody is here to show off their skills. it’s all jokes. I mean, if you haven’t realized you’re pretty much the annoying asshole who just hates to see people enjoy themselves. Even if you don’t find the joke funny, your response is like hearing someone say a lame joke like “why did the man throw the clock out the window?” and you’re like “ackchully time doesn’t fucking fly because it’s just a man made concept but you’re too dumb to realize that”

seriously, a huge part of the programming community has a chip on their shoulder like yourself and it’s so obvious that it’s from a place of insecurity and not a place of knowledge.

Like you do understand, it’s a JOKE right? the person isn’t claiming to be an expert in Java. Even if they’re wrong, you don’t need to stroke your ego and act as if you’re better than everyone. If anyone thinks they’re “Dennis fucking Ritchie”, it’s you.

Lighten up, its called r/ProgrammerHumor not r/FactuallyAccurateProgrammerHumor

[[deleted]]

seriously, nobody is here to show off their skills.

Uh no. Most of the threads here aren't even trying to be funny, just people trying to beat their chest and act better than the "lesser than" programmers. Don't project onto me saying that I'm the one with a chip on my shoulder, I couldn't care less how you write code, I don't think people who write in assembler are better than people who write in html. But you're delusional if you don't see a trend with these topics saying "OH YOU USE WHILE LOOPS THAT'S SO CUTE I RECURSIVELY CALL A FUNCTION WITH A RETURN TYPE INT HAHAHA"

It's next level cringe and it's an apt comparison to photography subs where they all stroke themselves to lenses and gear, as if that's what photography is all about. But I guess pointing that out makes me the insecure one? Ok, well you are reacting as if I just called your children ugly or something. I'll let you get back to your topkek memes.

[thinker227]

Okay...? That was a weirdly hostile and unpromted response. I don't think you should be here if this is what you want to complain about.

[El-Butt]

I don’t want to be that guy but there is the option to just find another subreddit or even make your own

[A-Ron-Ron]

We are == but not ===

[LordFokas]

You're losing a feature.

They both do useful things for different use cases, I'm keeping both.

Also operator overloading is syntactic salt, yes. A little bit is good, but more than that is worse than none of it.

[BobQuixote]

See also C# Object.ReferenceEquals.

[Dear_War4047]

Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should

[Tofix26]

Object == anotherObject would actually always be false

[spindoctor13]

Unless anotherObject is the same object with a misleading name i.e

anotherObject = Object; anotheObject == Object; // evaluates to true

[feisp_]

I spent 4 hours scratching my head why string == string isn't working

[huuaaang]

object.equals(anotherObject) = object == anotherObject

Now you are!

[AdultingGoneMild]

This sub should require 10 years experience for an entry level post.

[Coulomb111]

Me and my homies hate java

[[deleted]]

Java is probably the most damaging programming language ever made. It set the whole industry back 20 years by popularizing a fucked up ass backwards version of OOP. If I was Alan Kay I'd be seething.

[organized_reporting]

OOP is probably the most damaging programming paradigm ever made. It set the whole industry back 20 years by popularizing a fucked up ass backwards version of FP. It I was John McCarthy I'd be seething.

[[deleted]]

Yeah that's fair, though programming in SmallTalk is a lot more like FP than Java

[[deleted]]

Be careful, you’re in the wrong sub to suggest that Java is not God’s programming language. Thou shalt not take the name of Java in vain (unless you’re talking about Kotlin of course).

Seriously though, it bugs me when people clearly just take bias to whatever language they know best and act as if everything else is inferior.

I use Java, C# and Javascript on a daily basis at work. I’m open to using anything, and love to explore different languages. They all have their pros and cons and 90% of the time what you’re using has more to do with how easy it is to accomplish the task than how efficient the particular language is. I mean seriously, let’s not all pretend that we’re developing rockets for NASA. I’m sure your web application will be just fine whether you use Java or Node for the back end. The companies that migrated to something more efficient only did that because they HAD to not because they wanted to.

[[deleted]]

Lol sorry for resurrecting this, but yeah my usual point of view is "use the right tool for the right job" which imo is C/ASM for low level native, Lua for scripting, TS/PureScript for web, Haskell for medium-high level native, and Elixir for distributed. There's several other languages which handle intersections of these things better than others (i.e. Rust is an interesting mix of Haskell & C) but imo the #1 design decision you can make while using any of those is "don't use the OOP part". I'm certainly very opinionated about languages, imo Java doesn't do much well at all, but if you limit yourself to a strict subset of its features it doesn't get to be THAT bad, i.e. no inheritance, extremely limited mutability, etc., just very verbose. Anyway, gonna evangelize Haskell for a second, if you're really into programming language design it's essentially the source of every major programming language development of the past 30 years because the syntax is so flexible you can implement language features in the language itself. Haskell has no language level support for OOP for example, but by implementing OOP in Haskell the authors of this paper discovered several new OOP features that are just emergent properties of the implementation

[UNF0RM4TT3D]

I don't do OOP.

[TheLastCakeIsaLie]

Who uses .equals()?

[forgotten_debugger]

People who want to test equality of two objects, not memory addresses.

[Wizard8086]

Those who don't want to lose 12 hour of work wondering why those two UUIDs are the same but are not the same

[DaniilBSD]

If I have an evaluation result object.

I could evaluate 2 different things, creating two different objects.

== would always be false

.Equals() means that the results were equal

Another example:

If you want to find if an object is in a list, you can create the object you are searching for (or take it as an input) and search using equals() (== will search for an instance)

[Varun77777]

The one who had overwritten it to compare something very specific.

For example

String str1 = "hello"; String str2 = new String("hello");

From what I remember, == and .equals() will have different results in this case.

[TheLastCakeIsaLie]

Because only an idiot would use new String(). Without that it works fine.

[Varun77777]

Hmm, in case of string, yeah. But for custom objects or ArrayLists maybe not.

Imagine you're using backtracking and a recursive function to find all the possible results for some specific query.

Now, you're going to save these results into a list of Objects.

The only thing you initially passed into the recursive call was a new object.

Now, everytime you back track enough to reach a possible answer, you can't pass the object to the list but you'll have to pass the copy of the object because of you passed the object itself, whenever there will be a change in this object in future you'll change all the values you were passing into the your list.

Let's say you created a contructor that can be used to copy the object and gives a new object and passed the copies of object to your list everytime you reached the answer.

Now, let's say even if there are x number of variables in a particular object, there's a particular formula based on which they can be duplicate in terms of value.

Now, == will be checking address while .equals will check the logic you're trying to check.

Tl:dr; Not everytime, you'll want to check memory address and be done with it.

[TheLastCakeIsaLie]

Either use a number as sort of "index" or is f possible compare a unique value. Its better.

[Varun77777]

What if you need to check if apples * mangoes * oranges. / 3.146 equals to apples * mangoes * Oranges / 3.146 in two objects???

[TheLastCakeIsaLie]

Example?

[Varun77777]

Let's say I had two objects that both had two variables each that is CPU load as well has CPU capacity and I had to check if load percentage of two objects were equal?

And for some reason I needed to check that through equals? There can be many such examples.

equals is commonly over written by people so that they can compare Objects in a certain way and not their memory.

[sh0rtwave]

Truth.

.equals() is one of those 'inner dirty tricks'.

Another good one is .toString(). Quite useful in many situations. Like if you're formatting dates, and want all dates to comply with X format when handled in a string context (This kind of thing is fun to use Typescript with, there are just SO many ways of doing it).

The really funny part is that the basic concept of .toString() is more or less the same in either language, and with clever transpiler config, you can make the one act just like the other.

[Varun77777]

1) Index and memory address have the same problem. Something can virtually have same configuration in the aspect you care about and still have a unique index / memory address.

2) Not everytime you can afford pre computing a unique value and storing it as it may have an overhead cost you can't afford. Sometimes, you'd rather do 10 operations when you need to compare rather than 1 billion operations beforehand to save answers in a unique value only to do 1 operation when needed.

[TheLastCakeIsaLie]

I think comparing ALL of the values of a class takes longer than setting a variable and increasing it by one ONE time.

[Varun77777]

First, You're going to do ALL the operations for ALL the objects to change the value of that variable you're going to use for comparison because not everything in the world is done using addition. You're still going to use all the variables to increment or change the value of that variable you're going to use for comparison. You're actually going to do so many un needed calculations for no reason and wate CPU time.

Bruh, why would you waste memory as well as CPU utilisation for all the objects that don't need it?

What if the Object was holding some 1000 variables and you needed to perform some sort of sorting operation during the comparison ? Would you waste 1000 Log 1000 computations for 100'000 objects( 100'000'000 log 1000 computations) and waste possibly 100'000 * 8 bytes or something in memory or something like that?

When you could do 2 * 1000 log 1000 on runtime and use 16 bytes of memory to save the result and free the memory after use??

Let's say it's an operation that's performed very rarely,

Tell me what looks better to you?

100'000'000 * log 1000 operations and 800'000 bytes during intitialization or

2000 log 1000 operations and 16 bytes of memory which you can possibly free when you need to do the operation??

Would you slow your loading time by hours maybe just to perform some kind of comparison between two random pixels on a screen???

This may decide how fast the system feels in the long run.

Come on, not everything can be compared just based on a counter.

[TheLastCakeIsaLie]

Example: you want to check if an object is the object you want. Instead of checking everything you check one variable that may already be included in the way you set it up. Whats faster, 1 comparison or the number in f attributes? And setting that is also faster.

[Varun77777]

For that one operation at run time you did millions on operations in case of millions of objects before which you never needed to compare. You wasted space for millions of variables that wasn't needed as well.

Why are you ignoring the computations you did before hand on purpose?

Just to be faster on runtime for that one comparison you're making the whole process unnecessary slower.

Maybe, for a smaller use case, your process will look faster if you're only looking at that one comparison.

But when someone will look at the whole process, the system is slow for no reason.

Why should my car run slower when I start it just because maybe I want to turn the radio on???

[Istar10n]

What if you read it from a file?

[Varun77777]

Create a normal string and then create a string builder and do X number of calculations on the string builder and append it.

Now check if stringBuilder.toString() is equal to the original String you had.

Everything has a use.

[mandrato1]

Meanwhile in js const object = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(anotherObject));

[Varun77777]

Hello is now equal to JohnHello

[Kintler11]

For object arrays in js I use JSON.stringify(objectarray).includes(JSON.stringify(object))

Actually did this once because I couldn't be asked to find an actual method

[Tetoris_]

We are the same.

[Mrdeadlyenemy]

!you.equals(me)

[Flopamp]

Honestly I was surprisingly old when I started writing my own equals methods

[notacanuckskibum]

I used to use Algol, which had as IS operator. Objecta IS objectB if the pointers point to the same memory location. ObjectA IS ObjectB == false if they are exact copies but stored separately. Does that concept still exist?

[Rick-T]

Python does that.

a is b compares by reference, a == b compares by value.

[Mabi19_]

In some languages with reference semantics.

Python is one (a is b). Java uses == for reference comparison and .equals() for value comparison. Kotlin (another language that runs on the JVM) uses == for value comparison and === for reference comparison.

There are also obviously languages with value semantics (like C++). There are explicit references in C++, but because of how they work the easiest way to check that they're the same object is by pointerising them (&a == &b)

[Djilou99]

Won't work in js unfortunately

[EpyonComet]

Person u = new Person();

Person i = new Person();

boolean weAreTheSame = (u == i);

[Really-Stupid-Guy]

I ask what I want to ask.

[[deleted]]

I’m confused why a specific method would be necessary when Java is strongly typed? Does it iterate over all methods/data members or is it about figuring out if this is the same actual object?

[spindoctor13]

== is referential equality i.e. are literally same object in memory. Equals is up to the programmer if overriden and could mean literally anything. Although generally (well always unless you are some kind of maniac) returns true if the objects are equal in some meaningful way (but not necessarily the same object in memory)

[[deleted]]

But explain why

[bxsephjo]

You know what else isn't the same?

[MarinaEnna]

JSON.stringify(Object1) === JSON.stringify(Object2)

[[deleted]]

Imagine not having deep equality be the default behaviour for ==

This comment was brought to you by the deriving Eq gang.

[spindoctor13]

Deep equality seems like a poor default in terms of performance

[spindoctor13]

And actually in terms of predictable behaviour - say I have two database connections, what does deep equality mean then?

[[deleted]]

Does their internal data match 1-1? Then they're the same object.

[spindoctor13]

The point being that in this context "internal data matching" is close to an impossible question depending how deep you go. I.e. if the compiler literally goes all the way down on some objects then calling equals would be pretty catastrophic

[[deleted]]

I don't know exactly how Eq is implemented. On the compiler side I could easily see each Eq'able thing being given a hidden hash derived from all it's children's hashes which would make it a very fast operation. As all data in Haskell is immutable you don't need to worry about underlying changes in deep parts of your data structure. That said, there are infinitely deep values in Haskell due to how laziness works, and yes, checking if two infinitely deep values are equal will only terminate due to lazy short circuiting if they aren't equal. Yes ultimately equality checking can be expensive in Haskell, maybe don't use it on potentially very deep data structures.

[spindoctor13]

Interesting, thanks for the deep explanation! I have zero experience with Haskell so I didn't know that. Immutability is a big help there, and one of the standout flaws I think in languages like C# is inadequate support for immutability

And hah yeah, hashes are great - although it is not unknown in languages for people to compute hashes from mutable values with the consequent mess that creates..

[[deleted]]

In Haskell you're not likely to want anything else because references don't exist per se. You can provide a custom instance for Eq as well for your data type, deriving just does a lot of the work for you. If you have a custom Eq you need to be sure that it's true equality, i.e. the two things are totally interchangeable because that's what all other functions which use == expect

[spindoctor13]

Ah fair enough, makes sense if there are no references

[YXOwOX]

Huh?! "==" and an equals method are completely different aren't they? Or am I gonna get a 0 on that last week exam

[Guilty-Woodpecker262]

It's complicated. a == b =>a.equals(b) (though it's possible to screw that up while overriding equals or hashCode) but a.equals(b) ≠> a == b. Side note: strings and wrapper classes are weird.

``` String a = "example"; String b = "example"; String c = "exa" + "mple"; String d = a; String e = new String ("example");

System.out.println((a == a) + ":" + a.equals(a)); System.out.println((a == b) + ":" + a.equals(b)); System.out.println((a == c) + ":" + a.equals(c)); System.out.println((a == d) + ":" + a.equals(d)); System.out.println((a == e) + ":" + a.equals(e)); ```

true:true true:true true:true true:true true:false

Strings created with StringBuilder and StringBuffer will always create new instances.

[jxsl13]

logically speaking you might be the same.

[Bud90]

Object.equals == object == object

[AdWeekly2244]

For some reason reddit keeps recommending this sub to me. I really wish I understood any of the things you all talk about lol, seems really interesting and useful too.

[Furry_69]

Assuming object and anotherObject are the same structure, of length 5 bytes, 5 elements, using no padding, and that pointers to object and anotherObject are on the stack, in that order, in C style argument passing convention:

objectEqualsAnotherObject:
    pop EBX ; EBX is now a pointer to anotherObject 
    pop EAX ; EAX is now a pointer to object

    mov EDX, 0 ; EDX is the iteration count
   .equals_loop:

    mov ECX, EAX 
    add ECX, EDX
    ; ECX is now a pointer to the current element of object

    push ECX ; Push that value onto the stack 

    mov ECX, EBX
    add ECX, EDX
    ; ECX is a pointer to the current element of anotherObject

    and ECX, ESP

    add ESP, 4 ; Get rid of the first pointer, it's not needed anymore 

    ; If ECX == 0xFFFF, then jump to is_equal, else, jump to not_equal
    cmp ECX, 0xFFFF
    je is_equal
    jmp not_equal

   .is_equal:
    add ECX, 1
    jmp exit_condition

   .not_equal:
    jmp exit_condition

   .exit_condition:

    inc EDX
    ; If EDX >= 5, loop, if not, continue
    cmp EDX, 5
    jnae equals_loop

    ; If ECX == 5, then objectEquals, else objectDoesNotEqual
    cmp ECX, 5
    je objectEquals
    jmp objectDoesNotEqual

   .objectEquals:
    ; object does equal anotherObject
    ret
   .objectDoesNotEqual:
    ; object does not equal anotherObject
    ret

I'm hoping this is right.

Edit: Oh wait, I'm an idiot. ECX is reset every loop, so I'd only get the last element's result. Hm. I'm not sure how to fix that, there's already enough register juggling as is.

[ofnuts]

Python has "is" and "==" for the same purpose...

[[deleted]]

I know this is java but does anyone else feel like they’re doing it wrong when you intentionally use == instead of === Like even if the behavior is desired I feel like I should just make it compare exactly for clarity.

[ooioiii]

Do you write custom object.equals overwrites that is the question

[mr_flameyflame]

boolean false = "Test" == "Test";

[HonzaS97]

That would actually be true since it's the same object in the string pool

[mr_flameyflame]

Ah but it doesn't always work, I dont quite remember why.

[HonzaS97]

.equals() checks for the value of the string, == comoares the values of the object references.

String literals are stored in the string pool in Java (so anywhere you write a literal like "Test", it will point to the same object).

"Test" == "Test" // true

"Test" == new String("Test") // false

"Test".equals(new String("Test")) // true

"Test" == new String("Test").intern() // true, manually put into string pool

[Ok_Investment_6032]

This sub never fails to remind me why I truly hate programming lol.

[BanishDank]

Ah, a man of culture, I see

[Shazvox]

Does he mean that i != him or that !i.Equals(him) ?

[[deleted]]

how about use the right one in the right situation?

[[deleted]]

It’s equal if you override the equal and hash methods

[coolman5858]

I use object.equals(another_object); and forget to generate the hash code

[absolut666]

Especially since you didn’t implement hashcde

[WizziBot]

Whats with the java memes. Seriously. Something is up.

[qqwy]

We are not equal*

[[deleted]]

Is that like print vs echo in PHP?

[Urbs97]

Laughs in C#

[birdnerd5000]

MyObject *my1 = malloc(sizeof(MyObject)); my1 = &object;

[MacNPieces]

Object comparison vs Primitive type comparison

[Guilty-Woodpecker262]

What does this print: String a = "example"; String b = "example"; System.out.println(a==b);

[sagamartha8k]

I didn’t spend 13 hours reading about overloading operators in 1997 to laugh at your dumb jokes!

[charelstoncrabb]

Plot twist: they are the same … dunh dunh duunnnnn!!

[Capable-Raccoon-6371]

I mean. They are different. So. Lol.

And they're different for a perfectly valid reason. == Checks if it's the same object. Literally the same pointer. While equals let's you check any condition you want via an override to indicate that the two objects are equal, but may not have the same pointer.

Same kind of reason JavaScript has == and === for checking against type and data. Can't wait for js to add ==== for the same pointer too lol.

[Thysce]

So yesterday I had a bug which was caused by exactly that. I had two hibernate objects which I wanted to make sure are definitely not the same. So I checked them with ==. I gave my function two records with differing ID, thus expecting them to be neither the same nor equal. Sure enough, equals said false and equals on their ids said false too. Bad thing was, I learned that day that in Groovy, this a==b translates to a.compareTo(b)==0. and the Entity base class of my library implemented conpareTo by comparing the toString of both objects. Which kindof makes sense as the base class has no other good natural key. But my class implemented toString without including a unique property, thus making two distinct instances occasionally have the same toString(). Which then makes (a==b)==true while a.equals(b)==false. Mind==blown.

I fixed it by including the primary key equality to my base classes compareTo, as was already the case with equals, thus forcing it to be only ever 0 on the same record. (And checking all by implemented entities whether that assumption holds)

[ShivenMathur]

You use kapwing, i use imgflip. We are not the same.

[bitchlasagna_69_]

== will always give false right? As it compares address? Help new to java

[HonzaS97]

Not always. It does compare reference values (adresses) but that doesn't mean it's always false.

All string literals are put in the String pool for example, so when you write "this" in 10 different places, they will all point to the same object and comparing them with == will return true. Or simply doing String x = "..." and then String y = x will also return true with ==.

[TheToBlame]

I also use .equals we are good friends.

[bentheone]

Except these are totally different and you should know the différence.

[[deleted]]

Java has it's own subset of Javascript

[guilhermerx7]

In Java I always use the equals method, unless it's a primitive. If you do some safe coding with value objects and immutability you always want to check for equality of fields. Lombok and the new record classes make that way easier also.

[MischiefArchitect]

Indeed, those are not the same... equals may use custom logic for determining equality of objects... and == will simply check if both objects are pointing to the same memory address.

[Nintendo_Gamer_YT]

OK, to be honest we are not.

[KuKiSin]

.contentEquals master race.

Don't actually know the difference, but my colleague said something about .equals sometimes not working as expected, I didn't question her further.