Code analyzer lore

Can't wait for all the other horror stories getting posted here :D
- I just like knowing which episode this is from and the implication that removing the code analyzer will cause an explosion.

So what is the reason for doing it that way?
- I think this is just a picky optimization.
  The first one runs the constructor to instantiate a new string, then gets its class (which is presumably a static property anyway). The second doesn’t have to run any constructor and just grabs the static class name from the type.
  Maybe there’s more implementation nuance here but it seems like an opinionated rule that has zero effect on performance unless that code is being called thousands of times every second. And even then the compiler probably optimizes them to the same code anyway.
  
  It's not picky, needlessly creating objects makes the garbage collector run a lot more. Especially if it's invoked frequently like Minecraft recreating the object for every block on the screen for every frame to render. The garbage collector is largely responsible for lag of up to a second occurring at random times.
  
  Maybe there’s more implementation nuance here but it seems like an opinionated rule that has zero effect on performance unless that code is being called thousands of times every second
  It's good practice to get in the habit of coding to only do the things you want/need to do rather than hoping the compiler does it for you.
  This particular constructor call may be light, but there may be constructors that have a lot of overhead. Or you might be running alongside 1000 other processes who said the same thing and you start to see performance degradation.
  
  Well, it also avoids running instantiation code, which could be doing all kinds of things. In theory, it could have a side-effect which modifies some of your application state or issues a log statement or whatever.
  Even if it doesn't do anything wild right now, someone could change that in the future, so avoiding running such code when it's not needed is generally a good idea.
  
  It's like saying list.isEmpty() over list.getLength() == 0 is a picky optimisation.
  There's a developer out there who coded this and they obviously don't know what they're doing. One day they're gonna iterate all rows in the database to check if it's empty. You have to flag these issues early and teach the newbies.
- Yup, wasted memory allocation to get something that's there already
- The first one returns an instance of the class, the second one is a static reference? I don't really know what I'm on about, so the words might be wrong.
  
  Interpreted it the same, but I'm coming from C++
  
  Would it be an instance of the class since the first thing you're doing is pulling the one property instead of the object itself?

flake8-simplify has a bunch of rules like that for Python, most of which may be automatically fixed if you're using something like ruff, so you never have to spend time actually fixing it.
- Well, you shouldn't have to spend any time actually fixing code found by that rule either. If the time you spent was larger than 0, you are better looking for the cause than making something that fixes it automatically.

So I don't java (or ms java either) anymore. Why can't you just reference the class itself?
- the 2nd does that already
  in the first you can't, as getClass() is not a static method (wouldn't even make sense if it was)
  
  The GP is saying that String is a class already, you shouldn't have to call String.class.
  Personally, I'm away from it for long enough that I don't remember either.

Your transcription doesn't have the code in it

I had a coworker who would sometimes not create a method as being static to the class and would therefore need to create a default instance to call said method. "It's domain-driven design."