Follow-up question to the previous one. I'm starti...

# codingconventions

[Felipe Álvarez]

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?

[karelpeeters]

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.

[ghedeon]

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

[Felipe Álvarez]

@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

[Hullaballoonatic]

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