Java Class.cast() vs. cast operator

Viewed 184496

Having being taught during my C++ days about evils of the C-style cast operator I was pleased at first to find that in Java 5 java.lang.Class had acquired a cast method.

I thought that finally we have an OO way of dealing with casting.

Turns out Class.cast is not the same as static_cast in C++. It is more like reinterpret_cast. It will not generate a compilation error where it is expected and instead will defer to runtime. Here is a simple test case to demonstrate different behaviors.

package test;

import static org.junit.Assert.assertTrue;

import org.junit.Test;


public class TestCast
{
    static final class Foo
    {
    }

    static class Bar
    {
    }

    static final class BarSubclass
        extends Bar
    {
    }

    @Test
    public void test ( )
    {
        final Foo foo = new Foo( );
        final Bar bar = new Bar( );
        final BarSubclass bar_subclass = new BarSubclass( );

        {
            final Bar bar_ref = bar;
        }

        {
            // Compilation error
            final Bar bar_ref = foo;
        }
        {
            // Compilation error
            final Bar bar_ref = (Bar) foo;
        }

        try
        {
            // !!! Compiles fine, runtime exception
            Bar.class.cast( foo );
        }
        catch ( final ClassCastException ex )
        {
            assertTrue( true );
        }

        {
            final Bar bar_ref = bar_subclass;
        }

        try
        {
            // Compiles fine, runtime exception, equivalent of C++ dynamic_cast
            final BarSubclass bar_subclass_ref = (BarSubclass) bar;
        }
        catch ( final ClassCastException ex )
        {
            assertTrue( true );
        }
    }
}

So, these are my questions.

  1. Should Class.cast() be banished to Generics land? There it has quite a few legitimate uses.
  2. Should compilers generate compile errors when Class.cast() is used and illegal conditions can be determined at compile time?
  3. Should Java provide a cast operator as a language construct similar to C++?
8 Answers

Generally the cast operator is preferred to the Class#cast method as it's more concise and can be analyzed by the compiler to spit out blatant issues with the code.

Class#cast takes responsibility for type checking at run-time rather than during compilation.

There are certainly use-cases for Class#cast, particularly when it comes to reflective operations.

Since lambda's came to java I personally like using Class#cast with the collections/stream API if I'm working with abstract types, for example.

Dog findMyDog(String name, Breed breed) {
    return lostAnimals.stream()
                      .filter(Dog.class::isInstance)
                      .map(Dog.class::cast)
                      .filter(dog -> dog.getName().equalsIgnoreCase(name))
                      .filter(dog -> dog.getBreed() == breed)
                      .findFirst()
                      .orElse(null);
}
Related