I use javascript:void(0)
.
Three reasons. Encouraging the use of #
amongst a team of developers inevitably leads to some using the return value of the function called like this:
function doSomething() {
//Some code
return false;
}
But then they forget to use return doSomething()
in the onclick and just use doSomething()
.
A second reason for avoiding #
is that the final return false;
will not execute if the called function throws an error. Hence the developers have to also remember to handle any error appropriately in the called function.
A third reason is that there are cases where the onclick
event property is assigned dynamically. I prefer to be able to call a function or assign it dynamically without having to code the function specifically for one method of attachment or another. Hence my onclick
(or on anything) in HTML markup look like this:
onclick="someFunc.call(this)"
OR
onclick="someFunc.apply(this, arguments)"
Using javascript:void(0)
avoids all of the above headaches, and I haven't found any examples of a downside.
So if you're a lone developer then you can clearly make your own choice, but if you work as a team you have to either state:
Use href="#"
, make sure onclick
always contains return false;
at the end, that any called function does not throw an error and if you attach a function dynamically to the onclick
property make sure that as well as not throwing an error it returns false
.
OR
Use href="javascript:void(0)"
The second is clearly much easier to communicate.
The docs for java.io.Serializable
are probably about as good an explanation as you'll get:
The serialization runtime associates with each serializable class a version number, called a serialVersionUID
, which is used during deserialization to verify that the sender and receiver of a serialized object have loaded classes for that object that are compatible with respect to serialization. If the receiver has loaded a class for the object that has a different serialVersionUID
than that of the corresponding sender's class, then deserialization will result in an
InvalidClassException
. A serializable class can declare its own serialVersionUID
explicitly by declaring a field named serialVersionUID
that must be static, final, and of type long
:
ANY-ACCESS-MODIFIER static final long serialVersionUID = 42L;
If a serializable class does not explicitly declare a serialVersionUID
, then the serialization runtime will calculate a default serialVersionUID
value for that class based on various aspects of the class, as described in the Java(TM) Object Serialization Specification. However, it is strongly recommended that all serializable classes explicitly declare serialVersionUID
values, since the default serialVersionUID
computation is highly sensitive to class details that may vary depending on compiler implementations, and can thus result in unexpected InvalidClassExceptions
during deserialization. Therefore, to guarantee a consistent serialVersionUID
value across different java compiler implementations, a serializable class must declare an explicit serialVersionUID
value. It is also strongly advised that explicit serialVersionUID
declarations use the private modifier where possible, since such declarations apply only to the immediately declaring class — serialVersionUID
fields are not useful as inherited members.
Best Solution
The answer is simple: an intrinsic function is defined in this way because a faster, native way to obtain the result of the function exists and it is applied in case thanks to a specified mapping.
That's not something related to compilation at all.
Integer.bitCount
is special in the sense that implementation is marked to be replaceable with a native asm instruction POPCNT. Basically this native instruction is used when using theInteger.bitCount
function (if the CPU supports that instruction), when you declare your own copy of the function the normal implementation is used.Why JVM is able to recognize that the function can be optimized? Because it's hardcoded somewhere in the JDK, that has nothing to do with similarity to the code.