Use the string.equals(Object other) function to compare strings, not the == operator.
The function checks the actual contents of the string, the == operator checks whether the references to the objects are equal. Note that string constants are usually "interned" such that two constants with the same value can actually be compared with ==, but it's better not to rely on that.
if (usuario.equals(datos[0])) {
...
}
NB: the compare is done on 'usuario' because that's guaranteed non-null in your code, although you should still check that you've actually got some tokens in the datos array otherwise you'll get an array-out-of-bounds exception.
Use the string.equals(Object other) function to compare strings, not the == operator.
The function checks the actual contents of the string, the == operator checks whether the references to the objects are equal. Note that string constants are usually "interned" such that two constants with the same value can actually be compared with ==, but it's better not to rely on that.
if (usuario.equals(datos[0])) {
...
}
NB: the compare is done on 'usuario' because that's guaranteed non-null in your code, although you should still check that you've actually got some tokens in the datos array otherwise you'll get an array-out-of-bounds exception.
Meet Jorman
Jorman is a successful businessman and has 2 houses.
But others don't know that.
Is it the same Jorman?
When you ask neighbours from either Madison or Burke streets, this is the only thing they can say:
Using the residence alone, it's tough to confirm that it's the same Jorman. Since they're 2 different addresses, it's just natural to assume that those are 2 different persons.
That's how the operator == behaves. So it will say that datos[0]==usuario is false, because it only compares the addresses.
An Investigator to the Rescue
What if we sent an investigator? We know that it's the same Jorman, but we need to prove it. Our detective will look closely at all physical aspects. With thorough inquiry, the agent will be able to conclude whether it's the same person or not. Let's see it happen in Java terms.
Here's the source code of String's equals() method:
It compares the Strings character by character, in order to come to a conclusion that they are indeed equal.
That's how the String equals method behaves. So datos[0].equals(usuario) will return true, because it performs a logical comparison.
Can I use == in Java for strings
programming languages - Why didn't == operator string value comparison make it to Java? - Software Engineering Stack Exchange
Java string equals string in if statement
Java: Comparing strings using == instead of string.equals()
Videos
My CS teacher told me that you have to use .equals() when comparing strings instead of == but today I tried using == and it worked. Was this supposed to happen or was it like a new update?
public class Main{
public static void main(String[] args) {
String name = "jarod";
if(name == "jarod"){
System.out.println("ELLO JAROD");
}else{
System.out.print("NO");
}
}
}For this bit of code the output was ello Jarod and if I put in something else for the string variable it gave me no
I guess it's just consistency, or "principle of least astonishment". String is an object, so it would be surprising if was treated differently than other objects.
At the time when Java came out (~1995), merely having something like String was total luxury to most programmers who were accustomed to representing strings as null-terminated arrays. String's behavior is now what it was back then, and that's good; subtly changing the behavior later on could have surprising, undesired effects in working programs.
As a side note, you could use String.intern() to get a canonical (interned) representation of the string, after which comparisons could be made with ==. Interning takes some time, but after that, comparisons will be really fast.
Addition: unlike some answers suggest, it's not about supporting operator overloading. The + operator (concatenation) works on Strings even though Java doesn't support operator overloading; it's simply handled as a special case in the compiler, resolving to StringBuilder.append(). Similarly, == could have been handled as a special case.
Then why astonish with special case + but not with ==? Because, + simply doesn't compile when applied to non-String objects so that's quickly apparent. The different behavior of == would be much less apparent and thus much more astonishing when it hits you.
James Gosling, the creator of Java, explained it this way back in July 2000:
I left out operator overloading as a fairly personal choice because I had seen too many people abuse it in C++. I've spent a lot of time in the past five to six years surveying people about operator overloading and it's really fascinating, because you get the community broken into three pieces: Probably about 20 to 30 percent of the population think of operator overloading as the spawn of the devil; somebody has done something with operator overloading that has just really ticked them off, because they've used like + for list insertion and it makes life really, really confusing. A lot of that problem stems from the fact that there are only about half a dozen operators you can sensibly overload, and yet there are thousands or millions of operators that people would like to define -- so you have to pick, and often the choices conflict with your sense of intuition.