As claimed here, placing an L after an integer constant turns it into a Long object whereas using l would supposedly turn it into its primitive counterpart long, but Oracle claims here that "An integer literal is of type long if it is suffixed with an ASCII letter L or l".
So is the former making things up, or is the latter lying to me?
And if Oracle is lying to me, would the memory and / or performance difference of Long vs long ever actually matter or even be detectable?
In other words, does the case of a Java IntegerTypeSuffix actually matter?
Placing the suffix l or L on the end of a numeric literal indicates a long literal, and not a Long object.
Section 3.10.1 of the JLS specifies the data type of a numeric literal with an l or L suffix:
An integer literal is of type long if it is suffixed with an ASCII letter L or l (ell); otherwise it is of type int (§4.2.1).
The type can matter when specifying literals of large quantity that are too large to fit in an int literal.
// 10 billion is illegal; too big to fit in an int,
// even if later assigned to a long
long tooBigInt = 10000000000;
// 10 billion here is a legal long literal
long justRight = 10000000000L;