Over a million developers have joined DZone.

String Builders and Smart Compilers

DZone's Guide to

String Builders and Smart Compilers

We've all been trained to stay away from string concatenation. The Java compiler stays away from it, too, even when the source code doesn't.

· Java Zone
Free Resource

Are you joining the containers revolution? Start leveraging container management using Platform9's ultimate guide to Kubernetes deployment.

A friend of mine discovered "something" in a Java file recently; it looked about like this:

String s1;
// etc. about 20

String combined = s1 + s2 + ... + s20;

For a long time, this has been seen as a bad practice, because of the nature of strings in the Java programming language. In Java, every string is immutable; if it needs to change, a new string object is created, and the contents are copied over.

For the most part, this is done to allow Java to avoid a large class of buffer overflows that occur from reading off the end of a string. It's the same reason that the size of an array is established at the time of its instantiation.

So we look at this code and imagine that for each plus sign, a new string object is created, which of course would be wildly inefficient. Of course, most Java developers also know that the Java compiler is smarter than that. Instead of creating a string object for each concatenation, or a single new string object for all the concatenations, it uses the StringBuilder class that is built into the Java standard library.

So as we discussed this code, we concluded it probably winds up pretty efficient at runtime, even though it looks terrible. But that led us to wonder how smart the compiler really is. Should we just stop worrying about using StringBuilder ourselves and just let the compiler do it?

It turns out that the answer is no; it's probably best to keep the habit of using StringBuilder instead of concatenation. At worst, the compiled bytecode is the same. At best, it saves some object instantiation. Here's some examples to illustrate, using Java 8.

Simple Concatenation

The easiest thing in this case is to stay away from development environments and stick to command-line tools. We'll start with a simple Java class and compile it using "javac".

public class StringConcatSingle {

        public static void main(String[] args) {
                String s1 = "abc";
                String s2 = "def";

                System.out.println(s1 + s2);

Then compile and run through the javap tool, which is built into Java and is great for looking at byte code:

$ javac *.java
$ javap -c StringConcatSingle.class

As expected, the compiler created a StringBuilder and used its append() method. Since this example is the shortest, I'll show the full bytecode for main():

  public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
       0: ldc           #2                  // String abc
       2: astore_1
       3: ldc           #3                  // String def
       5: astore_2
       6: getstatic     #4                  // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
       9: new           #5                  // class java/lang/StringBuilder
      12: dup
      13: invokespecial #6                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
      16: aload_1
      17: invokevirtual #7                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      20: aload_2
      21: invokevirtual #7                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      24: invokevirtual #8                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
      27: invokevirtual #9                  // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
      30: return

So the concatenation is replaced with two calls to StringBuilder.append().

To give a bit more detail for those who might not have looked at bytecode before:

  • Lines 0-3: Load the "abc" and "def" strings from the constant pool and store them into local registers.
  • Line 6: Get a reference to the static field System.out and put it on the stack.
  • Line 9: Instantiate a StringBuilder object.
  • Line 12: Duplicate it on the stack. This is a neat trick that avoids having to store it to a register. Normally, the call to its constructor would pop it off the stack, but this way there's a reference to it still ready to use.
  • Line 13: Call its default no-arg constructor.
  • Lines 16-21: Load the first string, append it, then load the second string, then append it. Note that "invokevirtual" is the Java bytecode to call a method, and that both the target object and its parameters are popped off the stack for use. The return value, if any, is then pushed onto the stack. It so happens that StringBuilder.append()returns "this" to support method chaining, so it winds up back on the stack again in the right spot for the next call. Another clever trick.
  • Line 24: Call toString() on the StringBuilder, again taking advantage of the fact that StringBuilder.append() returns "this".
  • Line 27: Invoke println() on the reference to System.out that was pushed onto the stack way back in line 6. Yet another bit of cleverness; because it was pushed onto the stack way back there, it is in the right place for this method call, "behind" the string parameter. If you own a calculator with Reverse Polish Notation this will all make perfect sense.

All in all, I hope you walk away with an appreciation for how much thought goes into compiling even a simple method.

Simple StringBuilder

It's interesting to see how this compares to code that uses a StringBuilder directly:

public class StringBuilderSingle {

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String s1 = "abc";
        String s2 = "def";

        StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();

  public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
       0: ldc           #2                  // String abc
       2: astore_1
       3: ldc           #3                  // String def
       5: astore_2
       6: new           #4                  // class java/lang/StringBuilder
       9: dup
      10: invokespecial #5                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
      13: astore_3
      14: aload_3
      15: aload_1
      16: invokevirtual #6                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      19: pop
      20: aload_3
      21: aload_2
      22: invokevirtual #6                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      25: pop
      26: getstatic     #7                  // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
      29: aload_3
      30: invokevirtual #8                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
      33: invokevirtual #9                  // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
      36: return

It's pretty much identical; the only difference is that the StringBuilder instance gets stored away and reloaded on each use, because the compiler is operating on successive statements independently rather than writing optimized bytecode for a single statement. We could use our insights about method chaining above to improve this code further, and make it 100% identical to the concatenation version.

Multiple Statements

Let's make things a little more complicated for the compiler:

public class StringConcatDouble {

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String s1 = "abc";
        String s2 = "def";
        String s3 = "ghi";
        String s4 = "jkl";

        String output = s1 + s2;
        output = output + s3 + s4;

In this case, we have two statements, but they are both assembling the same string. And here, probably out of a need to only make safe optimizations, the compiler treats each statement separately, so we end up with two StringBuilder instances:

      13: new           #6                  // class java/lang/StringBuilder
      16: dup
      17: invokespecial #7                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
      20: aload_1
      21: invokevirtual #8                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      24: aload_2
      25: invokevirtual #8                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      28: invokevirtual #9                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;
      31: astore        5
      33: new           #6                  // class java/lang/StringBuilder
      36: dup
      37: invokespecial #7                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder."<init>":()V
      40: aload         5
      42: invokevirtual #8                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      45: aload_3
      46: invokevirtual #8                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      49: aload         4
      51: invokevirtual #8                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.append:(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/StringBuilder;
      54: invokevirtual #9                  // Method java/lang/StringBuilder.toString:()Ljava/lang/String;

The "output" variable gets the contents of the first StringBuilder, then that string is loaded back into the next variable (lines 28-42). However, note that the second concatenation statement, with its three strings, only uses one StringBuilder (lines 42-51).

To push it one more step, I tried looping over an array of strings, concatenating each one, to see if there was an optimization for loops, but the compiler generated a newStringBuilder for each iteration of the loop.

So we can conclude that the code at the top of this article would actually compile to something pretty well optimized. But for anything more complicated, the resulting bytecode is not as good as we could get if we do things correctly ourselves.

In my view, it means that the advice to avoid concatenation is still good advice, because it's a decent habit. But it means I have a justification for my habit of using concatenation in debug logging and similar places where it makes the code more compact and readable.

Postscript: Decompiling

One more interesting note I came across while looking at this. There's a great library, Java Decompiler, that turns Java class files back into source code, even if the source is not available. If the Java code is compiled with debugging symbols, it can pretty much re-create the original source file. But even if the debug symbols are not available, it gets pretty close. Here's the first example, compiled with "-g:none" for no debug symbols, then decompiled:

Image title

Variable names and line numbers were lost, but otherwise it did amazingly well. Note that it turns the calls to StringBuilder back into a string concatenation. Based on the difference we saw above in the bytecode, it is able to infer that the optmization was performed and undo it. Similarly, it can recognize that the reference to System.out is not stored in a local variable, and so it can reassemble the call to System.out.println() even though it is in two places in the bytecode.

For even more fun, I invite you to write a version of the above StringBuilderSingle class that uses method chaining and an anonymous StringBuilder, something like:

new StringBuilder().append(s1).append(s2).toString()

Run it throughjavap and you'll see that the bytecode is indeed identical. Not surprisingly, in this case the decompiler will again turn it into concatenation in the decompiled source code, even though the original source code used StringBuilder.

Using Containers? Read our Kubernetes Comparison eBook to learn the positives and negatives of Kubernetes, Mesos, Docker Swarm and EC2 Container Services.

java ,string handling ,compiler ,optimization

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.


Dev Resources & Solutions Straight to Your Inbox

Thanks for subscribing!

Awesome! Check your inbox to verify your email so you can start receiving the latest in tech news and resources.


{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}