Clean Code is Not Threadsafe Code?

I am currently reading Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship by Robert C. Martin and I’ve noticed a pattern.

In Listing 2-1, Martin recommends refactoring this code:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23


private void printGuessStatistics(char candidate, int count)
{
    String number;
    String verb;
    String pluralModifier;
    if (count == 0) {
        number = "no";
        verb = "are";
        pluralModifier = "s";
    } else if (count == 1) {
        number = "1";
        verb = "is";
        pluralModifier = "";
    } else {
        number = Integer.toString(count);
        verb = "are";
        pluralModifier = "s";
    }
    String guessMessage = String.format(
        "There %s %s %s%s", verb, number, candidate, pluralModifier
    );
    print(guessMessage);
}

into this:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40


public class GuessStatisticsMessage {
    private String number;
    private String verb;
    private String pluralModifier;

    public String make(char candidate, int count) {
        createPluralDependentMessageParts(count);
        return String.format(
            "There %s %s %s%s",
            verb, number, candidate, pluralModifier);
    }

    private void createPluralDependentMessageParts(int count) {
        if (count == 0) {
            thereAreNoLetters();
        } else if (count == 1) {
            thereIsOneLetter();
        } else {
            thereAreManyLetterscount();
        }
    }

    private void thereAreManyLetters(int count) {
        number = Integer.toString(count);
        verb = "are";
        pluralModifier = "s";
    }

    private void thereIsOneLetter() {
        number = "1";
        verb = "is";
        pluralModifier = "";
    }

    private void thereAreNoLetters() {
        number = "no";
        verb = "are";
        pluralModifier = "s";
    }
}

In listing 4-7, Martin recommends refactoring this code (comments elided):

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42


public class GeneratePrimes
{
    public static int[] generatePrimes(int maxValue)
    {
        if (maxValue >= 2) {
            int s = maxValue + 1;
            boolean f = new boolean[s];
            int i;

            for (i = 0; i < s; i++)
                f[i] = true;

            f[0] = f[1] = false;

            int j;
            for (i = 2; i < Math.sqrt(s) + 1; i++) {
                if (f[i]) {
                    for (j = 2 * i; j < s; j += i)
                        f[j] = false;
                }
            }

            int count = 0;
            for (i = 0; i < s; i++) {
                if (f[i]) {
                    count++;
                }
            }

            int[] primes = new int[count];

            for (i = 0, j = 0; i < s; i++) {
                if (f[i])
                    primes[j++] = i;
            }

            return primes;
        } else {
            return new int[0];
        }
    }
}

into this:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68


public class PrimeGenerator
{
    public static boolean[] crossedOut;
    public static int[] result;

    public static int[] generatePrimes(int maxValue)
    {
        if (maxValue < 2) {
            return new int[0];
        } else {
            uncrossIntegersUpTo(maxValue);
            crossOutMultiples();
            putUncrossedIntegersIntoResult();
            return result;
        }
    }

    private static void uncrossIntegersUpTo(int maxValue)
    {
        crossedOut = new boolean[maxValue + 1];
        for (int i = 2; i < crossedOut.length; i++)
            crossedOut[i] = false;
    }

    private static void crossOutMultiples()
    {
        int limit = determineIterationLimit();
        for (int i = 2; i <= limit; i++) {
            if (notCrossed(i))
                crossOutMultiplesOf(i);
        }
    }

    private static int determineIterationLimit()
    {
        double iterationLimit = Math.sqrt(crossedOut.length);
        return (int)iterationLimit;
    }

    private static void crossOutMultiplesOf(int i)
    {
        for (int multiple = 2*i; multiple < crossedOut.length; multiple += i)
            crossedOut[multiple] = true;
    }

    private static boolean notCrossed(int i)
    {
        return crossedOut[i] == false;
    }

    private static void putUncrossedIntegersIntoResult()
    {
        result = new int[numberOfUncrossedIntegers()];
        for (int j = 0, i = 2; i < crossedOut.length; i++) {
            if (notCrossed(i))
                result[j++] = i;
        }
    }

    private static int numberOfUncrossedIntegers()
    {
        int count = 0;
        for (int i = 2; i < crossedOut.length; i++)
            if (notCrossed(i))
                count++;
        return count;
    }
}

In both cases, Martin has transformed thread-safe, nearly pure functions into thread-unsafe functions. Even worse, while the former example can be used on multiple threads by having each thread instantiate a local instance of GuessStatisticsMessage, the latter example, due to its use of static member variables, cannot be used on multiple threads without some form of locking.

While I agree that Martin’s examples are more readable, it seems to me that there may be a fundamental tension between object-oriented programming and thread safety, and this tension does not exist in functional programming.