Should private helper methods be static if they can be static

I prefer such helper methods to be private static; which will make it clear to the reader that they will not modify the state of the object. My IDE will also show calls to static methods in italics, so I will know the method is static without looking at the signature.

It might result in slightly smaller bytecode, since the static methods won't get access to this. I don't think it makes any difference in speed (and if it did, it would probably be too small to make a difference overall).

I would make them static, since I generally do so if at all possible. But that's just me.

EDIT: This answer keeps getting downvoted, possibly because of the unsubstantiated assertion about bytecode size. So I will actually run a test.

class TestBytecodeSize {
    private void doSomething(int arg) { }
    private static void doSomethingStatic(int arg) { }
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        // do it twice both ways
        doSomethingStatic(0);
        doSomethingStatic(0);
        TestBytecodeSize t = new TestBytecodeSize();
        t.doSomething(0);
        t.doSomething(0);
    }
}

Bytecode (retrieved with javap -c -private TestBytecodeSize):

Compiled from "TestBytecodeSize.java"
class TestBytecodeSize extends java.lang.Object{
TestBytecodeSize();
  Code:
   0:   aload_0
   1:   invokespecial   #1; //Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
   4:   return

private void doSomething(int);
  Code:
   0:   return

private static void doSomethingStatic(int);
  Code:
   0:   return

public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
  Code:
   0:   iconst_0
   1:   invokestatic    #2; //Method doSomethingStatic:(I)V
   4:   iconst_0
   5:   invokestatic    #2; //Method doSomethingStatic:(I)V
   8:   new     #3; //class TestBytecodeSize
   11:  dup
   12:  invokespecial   #4; //Method "<init>":()V
   15:  astore_1
   16:  aload_1
   17:  iconst_0
   18:  invokespecial   #5; //Method doSomething:(I)V
   21:  aload_1
   22:  iconst_0
   23:  invokespecial   #5; //Method doSomething:(I)V
   26:  return

}

Invoking the static method takes two bytecodes (byteops?): iconst_0 (for the argument)

One reason you might want to declare static helper methods is if you need to call them in the class constructor "before" this or super. For example:

public class MyClass extends SomeOtherClass { 
    public MyClass(String arg) {
       super(recoverInt(arg));
    }

    private static int recoverInt(String arg) {
       return Integer.parseInt(arg.substring(arg.length() - 1));
    }
}

This is a bit of a contrived example but clearly recoverInt cannot be an instance method in this case.

If the method is basically just a subroutine that will never foreseeably use state information, declare it static.

This allows it to be used in other static methods or in class initialization, i.e.:

public class Example {
   //...

   //Only possible if computeOne is static
   public final static double COMPUTED_ONE = computeOne(new Something("1"));

   //...
}

As many people said, make it is as a static! Here's the thumb rule which I follow : If you think the method is just a mathematical function i.e it is stateless, doesn't involve any instance variables(=> no blue color vars [in eclipse] in the method), and the result of the method will be the same for 'n' number of calls (with the same parameters, ofcourse), then mark that method as STATIC.

And if you think that this method will be useful to other class then move it to a Util class otherwise, put the method as private in the sameclass. (minimizing the accessibility)