[1.8] [Explained] Any reason to use wrappers with the data watcher?

[Anon10W1z]

I always see other modders use code like this with the datawatcher:

datawatcher.addObject(20, Integer.valueOf(7));
datawatcher.addObject(21, Byte.valueOf((byte) 0));

 

Why can't they just do this?

datawatcher.addObject(20, 7);
datawatcher.addObject(21, (byte) 0);

[LexManos]

Because other 'modders' just use copy pasta. Those two pieces of code are LITERALLY exactly the same.

The compiler automatically adds the boxes.

And when we decompile Minecraft, we get that code.

People copy it thinking 'omg mojang does it that way' without thinking it through.

[Belpois]

Using Integer.valueOf(Object) should be used when you are trying convert some object that you are unsure if its an integer or a string that represents an number.

 

Also if you have an object that you are unsure if its a number check it with instance of first, it more visually understandable.

 

Object obj = 900;
Integer.valueOf((Integer) obj);
            
String nbr = "72162";
Integer.valueOf(nbr);

 

They might also think that having those extra few lines of code will make there code look more "pro"?

 

Well no, when I see code like that I usually scratch my head a few times and say Wat!

 

 

 

Haha 

 

 

[Belpois]

Belpois... No. The code examples you gave make no sense whatsoever.

 

Ermm, why not? If I had a string representation of a number you could use valueOf to convert it to an integer... or you could use parseInt which is called by valueOf(str)

 

The object one yes, it useless you could simply check with instance of...

[Belpois]

The Object one makes no sense. I'll de-sugar all the autoboxing for you (this is what the compiler does when you compile your code):

 

Object obj = Integer.valueOf(900);
Integer.valueOf(((Integer) obj).intValue());

 

It's pretty pointless. And the string version of valueOf is kinda pointless as well, because most of the time you are dealing with int, not Integer. So the boxed version (which is what valueOf(String) is, it's the boxed version of parseInt) just produces an overhead.

If you do:

 

int i = Integer.valueOf("1234");

 

you get an unnecessary intermediate Integer object.

Yes agreed, the Integer.valueOf is pretty useless. I was just explaining what the Integer.valueOf could have been used for but yes its a useless intermediate object.

 

What we have learned today:

• Don't copy and paste from the vanilla code
  
• Integer.valueOf is useless use parseInt for string to int conversion
  

 

[Anon10W1z]

Because other 'modders' just use copy pasta. Those two pieces of code are LITERALLY exactly the same.

The compiler automatically adds the boxes.

And when we decompile Minecraft, we get that code.

People copy it thinking 'omg mojang does it that way' without thinking it through.

Huh, thanks Lex!

[coolAlias]

Another example is in recipes, nearly everyone adds 'new Object[]{...}' when they can just list the parameters in order. Three cheers for copy/pasting of auto-boxing