Generally speaking, the more I use immutable objects in Java the more I'm thinking they're a great idea. They've got lots of advantages from automatically being thread-safe to not needing to worry about cloning or copy constructors.

This has got me thinking, would an "immutable" keyword go amiss? Obviously there's the disadvantages with adding another reserved word to the language, and I doubt it will actually happen primarily for the above reason - but ignoring that I can't really see many disadvantages.

At present great care has to be taken to make sure objects are immutable, and even then a dodgy javadoc comment claiming a component object is immutable when it's in fact not can wreck the whole thing. There's also the argument that even basic objects like string aren't truly immutable because they're easily vunerable to reflection attacks.

If we had an immutable keyword the compiler could surely recursively check and give an iron clad guarantee that all instances of a class were immutable, something that can't presently be done. Especially with concurrency becoming more and more used, I personally think it'd be good to add a keyword to this effect. But are there any disadvantages or implementation details I'm missing that makes this a bad idea?