Follow-up question to the previous one. I'm starting with Kotlin migrating some classes. In Java, I try to define as

private static final

attributes to avoid memory footprint and object creation. In Kotlin, I created a companion object with a

private const val

but when decompiled code shows a new inner static class is created, does this create more memory footprint than the Java counterpart? Is there a better way to define constant which should be used only in one class?

It's more memory footprint, but there's no per object overhead if you're afraid of that. You can also do

@JvmStatic

on the companion object values if you've determined the overhead does matter for your application.

you can also just put it below the class definition in the same file and avoid all this companion boilerplate.

@ghedeon that creates a class a class <FileName>Kt containing the

private static final

inside. I'm more worried about memory footprint than boilerplate. Although, I agree the whole

companion object

thing reminds me of Java verbosity

yeah, kotlin has its own forms of verbosity not even seen in java, like

mutableListOf(...)

,

1.0 + 1.toDouble()

, and the aforementioned, but more than makes up for it in almost every other area in that regard