In short, yes.

Ultimately this shouldn’t be too surprising: Kotlin compiles down to the equivalent Java bytecode, so this is indeed a problem here too. I figured it would be but I wanted to check, so here’s what I found:

class SyntheticAccessorTest {



private var counter = 0



fun main(args: Array<String>) {



val someClass = SomeClass(object : SomeInterface {

override fun doSomething() {

printSomething()

}



override fun doSomethingElse() {

counter++

}

})

}



private fun printSomething() {

print("Something")

}

}



class SomeClass(var listener: SomeInterface)



interface SomeInterface {



fun doSomething()



fun doSomethingElse()



}

Here we have a simple test class which invokes the constructor of another simple class and takes an anonymous implementation of an interface . In one of the callbacks, we invoke a function which is private , in another we increment a counter which is also private . Unfortunately because of this, the resulting .class file will absolutely have synthetic accessor methods, and once we look into it, it’s easy to see why.

In Android Studio, if we select Kotlin Bytecode and then Decompile , we get this Java (I’ve simplified this a bit for readability):

public final class SyntheticAccessorTest {

private int counter;



public final void main(@NotNull String[] args) {

new SomeClass(new SomeInterface() {

public void doSomething() {

SyntheticAccessorTest.this.printSomething();

}



public void doSomethingElse() {

int var1;

SyntheticAccessorTest.this.counter = (var1 = SyntheticAccessorTest.this.counter) + 1;

}

}));

}



private final void printSomething() {

String var1 = "Something";

System.out.print(var1);

}

}

If we then decompile the file with javap -p -c SyntheticAccessorTest.class , we then get this:

public final class SyntheticAccessorTest {

private int counter; public final void main(java.lang.String[]);

Code:

[...] private final void printSomething();

Code:

[...] public SyntheticAccessorTest();

Code:

[...] public static final void access$printSomething(SyntheticAccessorTest);

Code:

[...] public static final int access$getCounter$p(SyntheticAccessorTest);

Code:

[...] public static final void access$setCounter$p(SyntheticAccessorTest, int);

Code:

[...]

}

And there they are: it’s these access$ methods that are the problem. In fact we get two for the counter field; one for set , one for get . You can easily see how this starts to add up quickly in an Android project.

If we change both counter and printSomething() to internal , we get this instead:

public final class SyntheticAccessorTest {

private int counter; public final int getCounter$Test_Project();

Code:

[...] public final void setCounter$Test_Project(int);

Code:

[...] public final void main(java.lang.String[]);

Code:

[...] public final void printSomething$Test_Project();

Code:

[...] public SyntheticAccessorTest();

Code:

[...]

}

Better. But what is interesting here is that whilst we lose the synthetic accessor for printSomething() , we still get two methods for setting and getting the counter property. This is due to Kotlin automagically adding getters and setters to properties, and indeed if we check the generated Java, we see:

public final int getCounter$production_sources_for_module_Test_Project() {

return this.counter;

}



public final void setCounter$production_sources_for_module_Test_Project(int var1) {

this.counter = var1;

}

Whether or not this seems unnecessary is up to you. In most Java classes you’d likely have written setters and getters anyway, so you haven’t really gained any unneeded methods in many situations. However in this case as the property is being accessed inside the parent class: these are obviously superfluous. Applying the same inspection to the equivalent Java code results in just 3 methods; two fewer than Kotlin.

If this is a huge concern for you there’s a simple fix; add the @JvmField annotation to the property and the getter/setter won’t be generated (thanks to Kirill Rakhman for the heads up).

So yes, you do need to be careful about accessing private functions in Kotlin for the same reason as you do in Java, and there appears to be a hidden cost in simply using properties. Sadly there isn’t yet an inspection for this yet, but I’m hoping that IntelliJ/Google will add this fairly soon. In the meantime, check your code carefully if the dex method count is something you worry about.