Found the answer

public class App {
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        Car car = new Car();
        Bicycle bicycle = new Bicycle();
        Van van = new Van();

        Object[] racers = {car, bicycle, van};  

        for(Object x : racers) {
            System.out.println(x.getClass()); 

            ((Vehicle) x).go();  // this is the only change I made
        }
    }
}

The better question might be: Why wouldn't you want to use a FOR loop to iterate through an array? There are many ways to iterate through an Array or a collection and there is no law that states you have to use the FOR loop. In a lot of cases, it's simply the best to use for speed, ease of use, and readability. And yet, in other cases it is not:

The Array:

int[] array = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};

Display Array with the typical for loop:

for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
    System.out.println(array[i]);
}

Display Array with the enhanced for loop:

for(Integer num : array) {
    System.out.println(num);
}

Display Array with the do/while loop:

int i = 0;
do {
    System.out.println(array[i++]);
} while (i < array.length);

Display Array with the while loop:

int j = 0;
while (j < array.length) {
    System.out.println(array[j++]);
}

Display Array through Recursive Iteration:

iterateArray(array, 0);  // 0 is the start index.


// The 'iterateArray()' method:
private static int iterateArray(int[] array, int index) {
    System.out.println(array[index]);
    index++; 
    if (index == array.length) {
        return 0;
    }
    return iterateArray(array,index);
}

Display Array using Arrays.stream() (Java8+):

Arrays.stream(array).forEach(e->System.out.print(e + System.lineSeparator())); 

Display Array using IntStream (Java8+):

IntStream.range(0, array.length).mapToObj(index -> array[index]).forEach(System.out::println);

Choose your desired weapon....

If you're looping through an array, it shouldn't matter - the enhanced for loop uses array accesses anyway.

For example, consider this code:

public static void main(String[] args)
{
    for (String x : args)
    {
        System.out.println(x);
    }
}

When decompiled with javap -c Test we get (for the main method):

public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
  Code:
   0:   aload_0
   1:   astore_1
   2:   aload_1
   3:   arraylength
   4:   istore_2
   5:   iconst_0
   6:   istore_3
   7:   iload_3
   8:   iload_2
   9:   if_icmpge   31
   12:  aload_1
   13:  iload_3
   14:  aaload
   15:  astore  4
   17:  getstatic   #2; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
   20:  aload   4
   22:  invokevirtual   #3; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
   25:  iinc    3, 1
   28:  goto    7
   31:  return

Now change it to use an explicit array access:

public static void main(String[] args)
{
    for (int i = 0; i < args.length; i++)
    {
        System.out.println(args[i]);
    }
}

This decompiles to:

public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
  Code:
   0:   iconst_0
   1:   istore_1
   2:   iload_1
   3:   aload_0
   4:   arraylength
   5:   if_icmpge   23
   8:   getstatic   #2; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
   11:  aload_0
   12:  iload_1
   13:  aaload
   14:  invokevirtual   #3; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(Ljava/lang/String;)V
   17:  iinc    1, 1
   20:  goto    2
   23:  return

There's a bit more setup code in the enhanced for loop, but they're basically doing the same thing. No iterators are involved. Furthermore, I'd expect them to get JITted to even more similar code.

Suggestion: if you really think it might make a significant difference (which it would only ever do if the body of the loop is absolutely miniscule) then you should benchmark it with your real application. That's the only situation which matters.

The Java Collections framework is something that you should browse. There are also some types that aren't array-like (Set and Map) but you will find that you will use them often. There are many different types of collections, and some have advantages over others for certain types of operations.

Classic arrays

First, the thing that isn't in the collections framework. The Array. Not ArrayList, but rather the classic int[]. The advantage of the array is that it closely maps to what memory is. foo[42] is to lookup. Many system level calls that give you a fixed number of items are arrays and they are good to know. "1,2,3".split(",") returns back an array for example.

The problem with arrays is that they aren't that flexible. Adding an element to the end of an array that already is at is maximum capacity means allocating a new, larger array and then doing an System.arraycopy() (javadoc) to copy all the elements from one array to another array in a timely manner.

To remove an element from the list you need to remove it and then walk the remainder of the list to have everything be contagious again. If you want to remove foo[4] from the list, you then assign foo[4] = foo[5] and foo[5] = foo[6] and so on down to the end of the list. Thats if you have to do it by hand. You can also use that System.arraycopy mentioned to do it for you given the right set of arguments. Something like:

System.arraycopy(foo,5,foo,4,foo.length - 4);

I might have that wrong, but thats the general idea. Copying the array back on itself. It should work.

If the src and dest arguments refer to the same array object, then the copying is performed as if the components at positions srcPos through srcPos+length-1 were first copied to a temporary array with length components and then the contents of the temporary array were copied into positions destPos through destPos+length-1 of the destination array.

Lists

As you see, arrays are a bit awkward to work with. You've got do it all by hand. Its good to know, but a pain to practice. There are two lists that are in common use that make this easier for you. For the most part, Lists look like arrays.

List<Integer> foo = ...;
foo.get(4);
foo.remove(5);

You call methods on them, but you are fetching the 4th element via method call instead of via direct access through the array. See that foo.remove(5). Thats it. You're done. You have removed an element from the list and deleted it. Much easier to remember.

ArrayList

The ArrayList is backed by an Array. This means that doing foo.get(4) runs fast, but foo.add(42, foo.size()+1) is likely to be slow because it has to do all of that moving of things around to allocate a new list (yes, I know that the list can be longer than the size, but lets assume that its the same size as its actual list).

Instead of having to remember how to do all the shuffling, you've got nice methods to do your work for you. It doesn't mean that its not done (the work is still done behind the scenes of the interface), but its something that you don't have to worry about.

So, the ArrayList is for:

• fast get (O(1))
• slow remove and insert (O(length))
• slow append when full (O(length))

LinkedList

For some reason, everyone's goto list implementation is the ArrayList. I don't know why. Many times when I'm working with Lists, the LinkedList is the one that is more applicable. You keep adding things to the end. Rarely do you want the n^th element. You just want to iterate over them.

This is what the LinkedList is good for. It does fast remove and append and its iterator is just as fast as the ArrayList. Its just if you want foo.get(400) its going to be a bit slower than the ArrayList implement.

The LinkedList is also a Deque too, but people forget about that. That lets you access the LinkedList as a double ended queue (nice for implementing a Stack or Queue).

So, if you are just appending and iterating, the LinkedList is for you.

• Get is slowish (O(index))
• Fast append (O(1))
• Remove and insert is slowish (O(index))

Note that the O(index) there is a bit of an award bit. It will index depending on which way is faster to get there (from the end or start). So if the LinkedList is 100 long, and you get(10), it starts from the start. If you ask for get(90), it starts from the end. So get(index) is never more than get(length/2), but thats all just factors that don't matter when looking at Big O.