Java's final vs. C++'s const

Question

In C++ marking a member function const means it may be called on const instances. Java does not have an equivalent to this. E.g.:

class Foo {
public:
   void bar();
   void foo() const;
};

void test(const Foo& i) {
   i.foo(); //fine
   i.bar(); //error
}

---

Values can be assigned, once, later in Java only e.g.:

public class Foo {
   void bar() {
     final int a;
     a = 10;
   }
}

is legal in Java, but not C++ whereas:

public class Foo {
   void bar() {
     final int a;
     a = 10;
     a = 11; // Not legal, even in Java: a has already been assigned a value.
   }
}

---

In both Java and C++ member variables may be final/const respectively. These need to be given a value by the time an instance of the class is finished being constructed.

In Java they must be set before the constructor has finished, this can be achieved in one of two ways:

public class Foo {
   private final int a;
   private final int b = 11;
   public Foo() {
      a = 10;
   }
}

In C++ you will need to use initialisation lists to give const members a value:

class Foo {
   const int a;
public:
   Foo() : a(10) {
      // Assignment here with = would not be legal
   }
};

---

In Java final can be used to mark things as non-overridable. C++ (pre-C++11) does not do this. E.g.:

public class Bar {
   public final void foo() {
   }
}

public class Error extends Bar {
   // Error in java, can't override
   public void foo() {
   }
}

But in C++:

class Bar {
public:
   virtual void foo() const {
   }
};

class Error: public Bar {
public:
   // Fine in C++
   virtual void foo() const {
   }
};

this is fine, because the semantics of marking a member function const are different. (You could also overload by only having the const on one of the member functions. (Note also that C++11 allows member functions to be marked final, see the C++11 update section)

---

C++11 update:

C++11 does in fact allow you to mark both classes and member functions as final, with identical semantics to the same feature in Java, for example in Java:

public class Bar {
   public final void foo() {
   }
}

public class Error extends Bar {
   // Error in java, can't override
   public void foo() {
   }
}

Can now be exactly written in C++11 as:

class Bar {
public:
  virtual void foo() final;
};

class Error : public Bar {
public:
  virtual void foo() final;
};

I had to compile this example with a pre-release of G++ 4.7. Note that this does not replace const in this case, but rather augments it, providing the Java-like behaviour that wasn't seen with the closest equivalent C++ keyword. So if you wanted a member function to be both final and const you would do:

class Bar {
public:
  virtual void foo() const final;
};

(The order of const and final here is required).

Previously there wasn't a direct equivalent of const member functions although making functions non-virtual would be a potential option albeit without causing an error at compile time.

Likewise the Java:

public final class Bar {
}

public class Error extends Bar {
}

becomes in C++11:

class Bar final {
};

class Error : public Bar {
};

(Previously private constructors was probably the closest you could get to this in C++)

Interestingly, in order to maintain backwards compatibility with pre-C++11 code final isn't a keyword in the usual way. (Take the trivial, legal C++98 example struct final; to see why making it a keyword would break code)

A const object can only call const methods, and is generally considered immutable.

const Person* person = myself;
person = otherPerson; //Valid... unless we declared it const Person* const!
person->setAge(20); //Invalid, assuming setAge isn't a const method (it shouldn't be)

A final object cannot be set to a new object, but it is not immutable - there is nothing stopping someone from calling any set methods.

final Person person = myself;
person = otherPerson; //Invalid
person.setAge(20); //Valid!

Java has no inherent way of declaring objects immutable; you need to design the class as immutable yourself.

When the variable is a primitive type, final/const work the same.

const int a = 10; //C++
final int a = 10; //Java
a = 11; //Invalid in both languages

In Java the final keyword can be used for four things:

• on a class or method to seal it (no subclasses / overriding allowed)
• on a member variable to declare that is it can be set exactly once (I think this is what you are talking about)
• on a variable declared in a method, to make sure that it can be set exactly once
• on a method parameter, to declare that it cannot be modified within the method

One important thing is: A Java final member variable must be set exactly once! For example, in a constructor, field declaration, or intializer. (But you cannot set a final member variable in a method).

Another consequence of making a member variable final relates to the memory model, which is important if you work in a threaded environment.

Java final is equivalent to C++ const on primitive value types.

With Java reference types, the final keyword is equivalent to a const pointer... i.e.

//java
final int finalInt = 5;
final MyObject finalReference = new MyObject();

//C++
const int constInt = 5;
MyObject * const constPointer = new MyObject();

You have some great answers here already, but one point that seemed worth adding: const in C++ is commonly used to prevent other parts of the program changing the state of objects. As has been pointed out, final in java can't do this (except for primitives) - it just prevents the reference from being changed to a different object. But if you are using a Collection, you can prevent changes to your objects by using the static method

 Collection.unmodifiableCollection( myCollection ) 

This returns a Collection reference that gives read-access to the elements, but throws an exception if modifications are attempted, making it a bit like const in C++