Related
Eg
class Abc{
public void fun()
{
System.out.println("public method") ;
}
#Override
public String toString()
{
// "has to be public method but the access is default because of the class access";
return super.toString();
}
}
In the above Eg - fun method access is public but the class access is default hence what is the use of having the method public rather than default because it cannot be access without creating object.
In the same way the toString method has to be public since (overriding cannot restrict the access). But it is already getting restricted since the class access is default
My Basic question is
What is the use of having a less restricted method in a more restricted class?
My Basic question is What is the use of having a less restricted method in a more restricted class?
There are several purposes related to inheritance and polymorphism. The biggest of those is probably that methods that override superclass methods or implement interface methods cannot be more restricted than the method they override. In this regard, I note that you express a possible misconception when you say:
the toString method has to be public since (overriding cannot restrict the access). But it is already getting restricted since the class access is default
That class Abc has default access does not prevent any other class from having references to instances of Abc or from invoking the public methods of that class. The declared type of any such reference will be a supertype of class Abc, but the implementation invoked will be that provided by Abc.
Additionally, there is the question of signaling intent. It is helpful to view the access specified for class members to be qualified by the access level of the class. Thus, declaring fun() to be public says that it can be accessed by everyone who can access an instance of Abc. This is somewhat useful in its own right, but it also turns out to be especially useful if the access level of the class is ever changed. If the class's designer chose member access levels according to this principle, then those do not need to be revisited under these circumstances.
On its face?
Absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It's measurable (you can use reflection to fetch a java.lang.reflect.Method object that represents that method, and you can ask it if it is public, and the answer would be 'yes', but it doesn't actually change how accessible that method is.
However, taking a step back and thinking about the task of programming in its appropriate light, which includes the idea that code is usually a living, breathing idea that is continually updated: Hey, your class is package private today. Maybe someone goes in and makes it public tomorrow, and you intended for this method to be just as public as the type itself if ever that happens.
Specifically in this case, you're overriding a method. Java is always dynamic dispatch. That means that if some code has gotten a hold of an instance of this class (Created with new Abc()), and that code is not in this package, that they can still invoke this method.
Let's see it in action:
package abc;
class Abc {
#Override public String toString() { return "Hello"; }
}
public class AbcMaker {
public Object make() { return new Abc(); }
}
Note that here AbcMaker is public and make() can be invoked just fine from outside code; they know what Object is, and Abc is an Object. This lets code from outside the abc package invoke and obtain Abc instances, even though Abc is package private. This is fine.
They can then do:
package someOtherPackage;
class Test {
public void foo() {
System.out.println(new AbcMaker().make().toString());
}
}
And that would print Hello, as expected - that ends up invoking the toString defined in your package private class, invoked from outside the package!
Thus, we come to a crucial conclusion:
That toString() method in your package private class is ENTIRELY PUBLIC.
It just is. You can't override a method and make it less accessible than it is in your parent type, because java is covariant, meaning any X is a valid standin for Y, if X is declared as X extends Y. if Y has public toString, then X's can't take that away, as all Xs must be valid Ys (and Ys have public toString methods, therefore Xs must also have this).
Thus, the compiler is forcing you here. The banal reason is 'cuz the spec says so', but the reason the spec says this is to make sure you, the programmer, are not confused, and that what you type and write matches with reality: That method is public, it has to be, so the compiler will refuse to continue unless you are on the same page as it and also say so.
As succinctly described here, overriding private methods in Java is invalid because a parent class's private methods are "automatically final, and hidden from the derived class". My question is largely academic.
How is it not a violation of encapsulation to not allow a parent's private method to be "overridden" (ie, implemented independently, with the same signature, in a child class)? A parent's private method cannot be accessed or inherited by a child class, in line with principles of encapsulation. It is hidden.
So, why should the child class be restricted from implementing its own method with the same name/signature? Is there a good theoretical foundation for this, or is this just a pragmatic solution of some sort? Do other languages (C++ or C#) have different rules on this?
You can't override a private method, but you can introduce one in a derived class without a problem. This compiles fine:
class Base
{
private void foo()
{
}
}
class Child extends Base
{
private void foo()
{
}
}
Note that if you try to apply the #Override annotation to Child.foo() you'll get a compile-time error. So long as you have your compiler/IDE set to give you warnings or errors if you're missing an #Override annotation, all should be well. Admittedly I prefer the C# approach of override being a keyword, but it was obviously too late to do that in Java.
As for C#'s handling of "overriding" a private method - a private method can't be virtual in the first place, but you can certainly introduce a new private method with the same name as a private method in the base class.
Well, allowing private methods to be overwritten will either cause a leak of encapsulation or a security risk. If we assume that it were possible, then we’d get the following situation:
Let's say that there's a private method boolean hasCredentials() then an extended class could simply override it like this:
boolean hasCredentials() { return true; }
thus breaking the security check.
The only way for the original class to prevent this would be to declare its method final. But now, this is leaks implementation information through the encapsulation, because a derived class now cannot create a method hasCredentials any more – it would clash with the one defined in the base class.
That’s bad: lets say this method doesn’t exist at first in Base. Now, an implementor can legitimately derive a class Derived and give it a method hasCredentials which works as expected.
But now, a new version of the original Base class is released. Its public interface doesn’t change (and neither do its invariants) so we must expect that it doesn’t break existing code. Only it does, because now there’s a name clash with a method in a derived class.
I think the question stems from a misunderstanding:
How is it /not/ a violation of encapsulation to not allow a parent's private method to be "overridden" (ie, implemented independently, with the same signature, in a child class)
The text inside the parentheses is the opposite of the text before it. Java does allow you to “independently implement [a private method], with the same signature, in a child class”. Not allowing this would violate encapsulation, as I’ve explained above.
But “to not allow a parent's private method to be "overridden"” is something different, and necessary to ensure encapsulation.
"Do other languages (C++ or C#) have different rules on this?"
Well, C++ has different rules: the static or dynamic member function binding process and the access privileges enforcements are orthogonal.
Giving a member function the private access privilege modifier means that this function can only be called by its declaring class, not by others (not even the derived classes). When you declare a private member function as virtual, even pure virtual (virtual void foo() = 0;), you allow the base class to benefit from specialization while still enforcing the access privileges.
When it comes to virtual member functions, access privileges tells you what you are supposed to do:
private virtual means that you are allowed to specialize the behavior but the invocation of the member function is made by the base class, surely in a controlled fashion
protected virtual means that you should / must invoke the upper class version of the member function when overriding it
So, in C++, access privilege and virtualness are independent of each other. Determining whether the function is to be statically or dynamically bound is the last step in resolving a function call.
Finally, the Template Method design pattern should be preferred over public virtual member functions.
Reference: Conversations: Virtually Yours
The article gives a practical use of a private virtual member function.
ISO/IEC 14882-2003 §3.4.1
Name lookup may associate more than one declaration with a name if it finds the name to be a function name; the declarations are said to form a set of overloaded functions (13.1). Overload resolution (13.3) takes place after name lookup has succeeded. The access rules (clause 11) are considered only once name lookup and function overload resolution (if applicable) have succeeded. Only after name lookup, function overload resolution (if applicable) and access checking have succeeded are the attributes introduced by the name’s declaration used further in expression processing (clause 5).
ISO/IEC 14882-2003 §5.2.2
The function called in a member function call is normally selected according to the static type of the object expression (clause 10), but if that function isvirtualand is not specified using aqualified-idthen the function actually called will be the final overrider (10.3) of the selected function in the dynamic type of the object expression [Note: the dynamic type is the type of the object pointed or referred to by the current value of the object expression.
A parent's private method cannot be accessed or inherited by a child class, inline with principles of encapsulation. It is hidden.
So, why should the child class be
restricted from implementing its own
method with the same name/signature?
There is no such restriction. You can do that without any problems, it's just not called "overriding".
Overridden methods are subject to dynamic dispatch, i.e. the method that is actually called is selected at runtime depending on the actual type of the object it's called on. With private method, that does not happen (and should not, as per your first statement). And that's what is meant by the statement "private methods can't be overridden".
I think you're misinterpreting what that post says. It's not saying that the child class is "restricted from implementing its own method with the same name/signature."
Here's the code, slightly edited:
public class PrivateOverride {
private static Test monitor = new Test();
private void f() {
System.out.println("private f()");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
PrivateOverride po = new Derived();
po.f();
});
}
}
class Derived extends PrivateOverride {
public void f() {
System.out.println("public f()");
}
}
And the quote:
You might reasonably expect the output to be “public f( )”,
The reason for that quote is that the variable po actually holds an instance of Derived. However, since the method is defined as private, the compiler actually looks at the type of the variable, rather than the type of the object. And it translates the method call into invokespecial (I think that's the right opcode, haven't checked JVM spec) rather than invokeinstance.
It seems to be a matter of choice and definition. The reason you can't do this in java is because the specification says so, but the question were more why the specification says so.
The fact that C++ allows this (even if we use virtual keyword to force dynamic dispatch) shows that there is no inherent reason why you couldn't allow this.
However it seem to be perfectly legal to replace the method:
class B {
private int foo()
{
return 42;
}
public int bar()
{
return foo();
}
}
class D extends B {
private int foo()
{
return 43;
}
public int frob()
{
return foo();
}
}
Seems to compile OK (on my compiler), but the D.foo is not related to B.foo (ie it doesn't override it) - bar() always return 42 (by calling B.foo) and frob() always returns 43 (by calling D.foo) no matter whether called on a B or D instance.
One reason that Java does not allow override the method would be that they didn't like to allow the method to be changed as in Konrad Rudolph's example. Note that C++ differs here as you need to use the "virtual" keyword in order to get dynamic dispatch - by default it hasn't so you can't modify code in base class that relies on the hasCredentials method. The above example also protects against this as the D.foo does not replace calls to foo from B.
When the method is private, it's not visible to its child. So there is no meaning of overriding it.
I apologize for using the term override incorrectly and inconsistent with my description. My description describes the scenario. The following code extends Jon Skeet's example to portray my scenario:
class Base {
public void callFoo() {
foo();
}
private void foo() {
}
}
class Child extends Base {
private void foo() {
}
}
Usage is like the following:
Child c = new Child();
c.callFoo();
The issue I experienced is that the parent foo() method was being called even though, as the code shows, I was calling callFoo() on the child instance variable. I thought I was defining a new private method foo() in Child() which the inherited callFoo() method would call, but I think some of what kdgregory has said may apply to my scenario - possibly due to the way the derived class constructor is calling super(), or perhaps not.
There was no compiler warning in Eclipse and the code did compile. The result was unexpected.
Beyond anything said before, there's a very semantic reason for not allowing private methods to be overridden...THEY'RE PRIVATE!!!
If I write a class, and I indicate that a method is 'private', it should be completely unseeable by the outside world. Nobody should be able access it, override it, or anything else. I simply ought to be able to know that it is MY method exclusively and that nobody else is going to muck with it or depend on it. It could not be considered private if someone could muck with it. I believe that it's that simple really.
A class is defined by what methods it makes available and how they behave. Not how those are implemented internally (e.g. via calls to private methods).
Because encapsulation has to do with behavior and not implementation details, private methods have nothing to do with the idea encapsulation. In a sense, your question makes no sense. It's like asking "How is putting cream in coffee not a violation of encapsulation?"
Presumably the private method is used by something that is public. You can override that. In doing so, you've changed behavior.
I have recently joined a new company and I am trying to get used to their coding style guidelines. I have no problem changing my coding style, but one particular point, I am not sure whether they are right or not.
For my first task I had to extend one of the existing abstract classes to develop a particular functionality. Thus I needed to access many attributes declared in this abstract superclass. To do so I proposed to change the visibility of these attributes and declare them as protected. My surprise came with their reply:
"Never! That is absolutely against OOP and you would produce obscure and difficult to maintain code! What you have to do is creating a getter in the super class and using it from the subclass in order to access these attributes".
Well, I have been always using protected attributes in an abstract superclass and accessing them from the subclass directly and I always thought there was nothing wrong with it. Even I would say that calling all the time the getter to access an attributes in the super class is slower than using it by its name...
What do you think about it? Is it normal/standard coding style declaring the attributes in a superclass and accessing them directly or are you of the oppinion that is better creating getters for these attributes.
To sumarize, my way:
public abstract class A {
protected String variableA="a";
public abstract methodToImplement();
}
public MyClass B extends A {
public methodToImplement() {
System.out.println(variableA.length());
}
}
Their way:
abstract class A {
protected String variableA="a";
public String getVariableA() {
return variableA;
}
public abstract methodToImplement();
}
MyClass B extends A {
public methodToImplement() {
System.out.println(getVariableA().length());
}
}
Thanks.
So as other threads already point out it appears to be so that it's indeed recommended to use getters and setters. The reason being that if you ever plan to change the representation of that value (StringBuilder instead of String for example) you will have to change your code. A getter/setter allow you to program in a way that you send the getters/setters the data you want, and they will store it in the proper field for you (e.g., appending it to the StringBuilder). So yes, it apears to have a lot of advantages, even though it's not your coding style. However, declaring the variable as protected seems pretty weird when you use a getter and a setter as well..
I personally try to avoid getters/setters when they are a bit of overkill. To me they are overkill for value variables. For reference variables they are however a good idea.
However, I think there is no right or wrong here..
As succinctly described here, overriding private methods in Java is invalid because a parent class's private methods are "automatically final, and hidden from the derived class". My question is largely academic.
How is it not a violation of encapsulation to not allow a parent's private method to be "overridden" (ie, implemented independently, with the same signature, in a child class)? A parent's private method cannot be accessed or inherited by a child class, in line with principles of encapsulation. It is hidden.
So, why should the child class be restricted from implementing its own method with the same name/signature? Is there a good theoretical foundation for this, or is this just a pragmatic solution of some sort? Do other languages (C++ or C#) have different rules on this?
You can't override a private method, but you can introduce one in a derived class without a problem. This compiles fine:
class Base
{
private void foo()
{
}
}
class Child extends Base
{
private void foo()
{
}
}
Note that if you try to apply the #Override annotation to Child.foo() you'll get a compile-time error. So long as you have your compiler/IDE set to give you warnings or errors if you're missing an #Override annotation, all should be well. Admittedly I prefer the C# approach of override being a keyword, but it was obviously too late to do that in Java.
As for C#'s handling of "overriding" a private method - a private method can't be virtual in the first place, but you can certainly introduce a new private method with the same name as a private method in the base class.
Well, allowing private methods to be overwritten will either cause a leak of encapsulation or a security risk. If we assume that it were possible, then we’d get the following situation:
Let's say that there's a private method boolean hasCredentials() then an extended class could simply override it like this:
boolean hasCredentials() { return true; }
thus breaking the security check.
The only way for the original class to prevent this would be to declare its method final. But now, this is leaks implementation information through the encapsulation, because a derived class now cannot create a method hasCredentials any more – it would clash with the one defined in the base class.
That’s bad: lets say this method doesn’t exist at first in Base. Now, an implementor can legitimately derive a class Derived and give it a method hasCredentials which works as expected.
But now, a new version of the original Base class is released. Its public interface doesn’t change (and neither do its invariants) so we must expect that it doesn’t break existing code. Only it does, because now there’s a name clash with a method in a derived class.
I think the question stems from a misunderstanding:
How is it /not/ a violation of encapsulation to not allow a parent's private method to be "overridden" (ie, implemented independently, with the same signature, in a child class)
The text inside the parentheses is the opposite of the text before it. Java does allow you to “independently implement [a private method], with the same signature, in a child class”. Not allowing this would violate encapsulation, as I’ve explained above.
But “to not allow a parent's private method to be "overridden"” is something different, and necessary to ensure encapsulation.
"Do other languages (C++ or C#) have different rules on this?"
Well, C++ has different rules: the static or dynamic member function binding process and the access privileges enforcements are orthogonal.
Giving a member function the private access privilege modifier means that this function can only be called by its declaring class, not by others (not even the derived classes). When you declare a private member function as virtual, even pure virtual (virtual void foo() = 0;), you allow the base class to benefit from specialization while still enforcing the access privileges.
When it comes to virtual member functions, access privileges tells you what you are supposed to do:
private virtual means that you are allowed to specialize the behavior but the invocation of the member function is made by the base class, surely in a controlled fashion
protected virtual means that you should / must invoke the upper class version of the member function when overriding it
So, in C++, access privilege and virtualness are independent of each other. Determining whether the function is to be statically or dynamically bound is the last step in resolving a function call.
Finally, the Template Method design pattern should be preferred over public virtual member functions.
Reference: Conversations: Virtually Yours
The article gives a practical use of a private virtual member function.
ISO/IEC 14882-2003 §3.4.1
Name lookup may associate more than one declaration with a name if it finds the name to be a function name; the declarations are said to form a set of overloaded functions (13.1). Overload resolution (13.3) takes place after name lookup has succeeded. The access rules (clause 11) are considered only once name lookup and function overload resolution (if applicable) have succeeded. Only after name lookup, function overload resolution (if applicable) and access checking have succeeded are the attributes introduced by the name’s declaration used further in expression processing (clause 5).
ISO/IEC 14882-2003 §5.2.2
The function called in a member function call is normally selected according to the static type of the object expression (clause 10), but if that function isvirtualand is not specified using aqualified-idthen the function actually called will be the final overrider (10.3) of the selected function in the dynamic type of the object expression [Note: the dynamic type is the type of the object pointed or referred to by the current value of the object expression.
A parent's private method cannot be accessed or inherited by a child class, inline with principles of encapsulation. It is hidden.
So, why should the child class be
restricted from implementing its own
method with the same name/signature?
There is no such restriction. You can do that without any problems, it's just not called "overriding".
Overridden methods are subject to dynamic dispatch, i.e. the method that is actually called is selected at runtime depending on the actual type of the object it's called on. With private method, that does not happen (and should not, as per your first statement). And that's what is meant by the statement "private methods can't be overridden".
I think you're misinterpreting what that post says. It's not saying that the child class is "restricted from implementing its own method with the same name/signature."
Here's the code, slightly edited:
public class PrivateOverride {
private static Test monitor = new Test();
private void f() {
System.out.println("private f()");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
PrivateOverride po = new Derived();
po.f();
});
}
}
class Derived extends PrivateOverride {
public void f() {
System.out.println("public f()");
}
}
And the quote:
You might reasonably expect the output to be “public f( )”,
The reason for that quote is that the variable po actually holds an instance of Derived. However, since the method is defined as private, the compiler actually looks at the type of the variable, rather than the type of the object. And it translates the method call into invokespecial (I think that's the right opcode, haven't checked JVM spec) rather than invokeinstance.
It seems to be a matter of choice and definition. The reason you can't do this in java is because the specification says so, but the question were more why the specification says so.
The fact that C++ allows this (even if we use virtual keyword to force dynamic dispatch) shows that there is no inherent reason why you couldn't allow this.
However it seem to be perfectly legal to replace the method:
class B {
private int foo()
{
return 42;
}
public int bar()
{
return foo();
}
}
class D extends B {
private int foo()
{
return 43;
}
public int frob()
{
return foo();
}
}
Seems to compile OK (on my compiler), but the D.foo is not related to B.foo (ie it doesn't override it) - bar() always return 42 (by calling B.foo) and frob() always returns 43 (by calling D.foo) no matter whether called on a B or D instance.
One reason that Java does not allow override the method would be that they didn't like to allow the method to be changed as in Konrad Rudolph's example. Note that C++ differs here as you need to use the "virtual" keyword in order to get dynamic dispatch - by default it hasn't so you can't modify code in base class that relies on the hasCredentials method. The above example also protects against this as the D.foo does not replace calls to foo from B.
When the method is private, it's not visible to its child. So there is no meaning of overriding it.
I apologize for using the term override incorrectly and inconsistent with my description. My description describes the scenario. The following code extends Jon Skeet's example to portray my scenario:
class Base {
public void callFoo() {
foo();
}
private void foo() {
}
}
class Child extends Base {
private void foo() {
}
}
Usage is like the following:
Child c = new Child();
c.callFoo();
The issue I experienced is that the parent foo() method was being called even though, as the code shows, I was calling callFoo() on the child instance variable. I thought I was defining a new private method foo() in Child() which the inherited callFoo() method would call, but I think some of what kdgregory has said may apply to my scenario - possibly due to the way the derived class constructor is calling super(), or perhaps not.
There was no compiler warning in Eclipse and the code did compile. The result was unexpected.
Beyond anything said before, there's a very semantic reason for not allowing private methods to be overridden...THEY'RE PRIVATE!!!
If I write a class, and I indicate that a method is 'private', it should be completely unseeable by the outside world. Nobody should be able access it, override it, or anything else. I simply ought to be able to know that it is MY method exclusively and that nobody else is going to muck with it or depend on it. It could not be considered private if someone could muck with it. I believe that it's that simple really.
A class is defined by what methods it makes available and how they behave. Not how those are implemented internally (e.g. via calls to private methods).
Because encapsulation has to do with behavior and not implementation details, private methods have nothing to do with the idea encapsulation. In a sense, your question makes no sense. It's like asking "How is putting cream in coffee not a violation of encapsulation?"
Presumably the private method is used by something that is public. You can override that. In doing so, you've changed behavior.
I was wondering why in java constructors are not inherited? You know when you have a class like this:
public class Super {
public Super(ServiceA serviceA, ServiceB serviceB, ServiceC serviceC){
this.serviceA = serviceA;
//etc
}
}
Later when you inherit from Super, java will complain that there is no default constructor defined. The solution is obviously something like:
public class Son extends Super{
public Son(ServiceA serviceA, ServiceB serviceB, ServiceC serviceC){
super(serviceA,serviceB,serviceC);
}
}
This code is repetitive, not DRY and useless (IMHO)... so that brings the question again:
Why java doesn't support constructor inheritance? Is there any benefit in not allowing this inheritance?
Suppose constructors were inherited... then because every class eventually derives from Object, every class would end up with a parameterless constructor. That's a bad idea. What exactly would you expect:
FileInputStream stream = new FileInputStream();
to do?
Now potentially there should be a way of easily creating the "pass-through" constructors which are fairly common, but I don't think it should be the default. The parameters needed to construct a subclass are often different from those required by the superclass.
When you inherit from Super this is what in reality happens:
public class Son extends Super{
// If you dont declare a constructor of any type, adefault one will appear.
public Son(){
// If you dont call any other constructor in the first line a call to super() will be placed instead.
super();
}
}
So, that is the reason, because you have to call your unique constructor, since"Super" doesn't have a default one.
Now, trying to guess why Java doesn't support constructor inheritance, probably because a constructor only makes sense if it's talking about concrete instances, and you shouldn't be able to create an instance of something when you don't know how it's defined (by polymorphism).
Because constructing your subclass object may be done in a different way from how your superclass is constructed. You may not want clients of the subclass to be able to call certain constructors available in the superclass.
A silly example:
class Super {
protected final Number value;
public Super(Number value){
this.value = value;
}
}
class Sub {
public Sub(){ super(Integer.valueOf(0)); }
void doSomeStuff(){
// We know this.value is an Integer, so it's safe to cast.
doSomethingWithAnInteger((Integer)this.value);
}
}
// Client code:
Sub s = new Sub(Long.valueOf(666L)): // Devilish invocation of Super constructor!
s.doSomeStuff(); // throws ClassCastException
Or even simpler:
class Super {
private final String msg;
Super(String msg){
if (msg == null) throw new NullPointerException();
this.msg = msg;
}
}
class Sub {
private final String detail;
Sub(String msg, String detail){
super(msg);
if (detail == null) throw new NullPointerException();
this.detail = detail;
}
void print(){
// detail is never null, so this method won't fail
System.out.println(detail.concat(": ").concat(msg));
}
}
// Client code:
Sub s = new Sub("message"); // Calling Super constructor - detail is never initialized!
s.print(); // throws NullPointerException
From this example, you see that you'd need some way of declaring that "I want to inherit these constructors" or "I want to inherit all constructors except for these", and then you'd also have to specify a default constructor inheritance preference just in case someone adds a new constructor in the superclass... or you could just require that you repeat the constructors from the superclass if you want to "inherit" them, which arguably is the more obvious way of doing it.
Because constructors are an implementation detail - they're not something that a user of an interface/superclass can actually invoke at all. By the time they get an instance, it's already been constructed; and vice-versa, at the time you construct an object there's by definition no variable it's currently assigned to.
Think about what it would mean to force all subclasses to have an inherited constructor. I argue it's clearer to pass the variables in directly than for the class to "magically" have a constructor with a certain number of arguments just because it's parent does.
Constructors are not polymorphic.
When dealing with already constructed classes, you could be dealing with the declared type of the object, or any of its subclasses. That's what inheritance is useful for.
Constructor are always called on the specific type,eg new String(). Hypothetical subclasses have no role in this.
David's answer is correct. I'd like to add that you might be getting a sign from God that your design is messed up, and that "Son" ought not to be a subclass of "Super", but that, instead, Super has some implementation detail best expressed by having the functionality that Son provides, as a strategy of sorts.
EDIT: Jon Skeet's answer is awesomest.
Because a (super)class must have complete control over how it is constructed. If the programmer decides that it doesn't make sense to provide a default (no args) constructor as part of the class's contract, then the compiler should not provide one.
You essentially do inherit the constuctors in the sense that you can simply call super if and when appropriate, it's just that it would be error prone for reasons others have mentioned if it happened by default. The compiler can't presume when it is appropriate and when it isn't.
The job of the compiler is to provide as much flexibility as possible while reducing complexity and risk of unintended side-effects.
I don't know any language where subclasses inherit constructors (but then, I am not much of a programming polyglott).
Here's a discussion about the same question concerning C#. The general consensus seems to be that it would complicate the language, introduce the potential for nasty side effects to changes in a base class, and generally shouldn't be necessary in a good design.
A derived class is not the the same class as its base class and you may or may not care whether any members of the base class are initialized at the time of the construction of the derived class. That is a determination made by the programmer not by the compiler.