Develop Reference

Java : final constructor [duplicate]

Why can't constructors be final, static, or abstract in Java?
For instance, can you explain to me why this is not valid?
public class K {
abstract public K() {
// ...
}
}

When you set a method as final it means: "I don't want any class override it." But according to the Java Language Specification:
JLS 8.8 - "Constructor declarations are not members. They are never inherited and therefore are not subject to hiding or overriding."
When you set a method as abstract it means: "This method doesn't have a body and it should be implemented in a child class." But the constructor is called implicitly when the new keyword is used so it can't lack a body.
When you set a method as static it means: "This method belongs to the class, not a particular object." But the constructor is implicitly called to initialize an object, so there is no purpose in having a static constructor.

The question really is why you want constructor to be static or abstract or final.
Constructors aren't inherited so can't be overridden so whats the use
to have final constructor
Constructor is called automatically when an instance of the class is
created, it has access to instance fields of the class. What will be
the use of a static constructor.
Constructor can't be overridden so what will you do with an abstract
constructor.

A Java constructor is implicitly final, the static / non-static aspects of its semantics are implicit1, and it is meaningless for a Java constructor to be abstract.
This means that the final and static modifiers would be redundant, and the abstract keyword would have no meaning at all.
Naturally, the Java designers didn't see in any point in allowing redundant and/or meaningless access modifiers on constructors ... so these are not allowed by the Java grammar.
Aside: It is a shame that they didn't make the same design call for interface methods where the public and abstract modifiers are also redundant, but allowed anyway. Perhaps there is some (ancient) historical reason for this. But either way, it cannot be fixed without rendering (probably) millions of existing Java programs uncompilable.
1 - Actually, constructors have a mixture of static and non-static semantics. You can't "call" a constructor on an instance, and it they are not inherited, or overridable. This is similar to the way static methods work. On the other hand, the body of a constructor can refer to this, and call instance methods ... like an instance method. And then there is constructor chaining, which is unique to constructors. But the real point is that these semantics are fixed, and there is no point allowing a redundant and probably confusing static modifier.

public constructor: Objects can be created anywhere.
default constructor: Objects can be created only in the same package.
protected constructor: Objects can be created by classes outside the package only if it's a subclass.
private constructor: Object can only be created inside the class (e.g., when implementing a singleton).
The static, final and abstract keywords are not meaningful for a constructor because:
static members belong to a class, but the constructor is needed to create an object.
An abstract class is a partially implemented class, which contains abstract methods to be implemented in child class.
final restricts modification: variables become constant, methods can't be overridden, and classes can't be inherited.

Final: Because you can't overwrite/extend a constructor anyway. You can extend a class (to prevent that you make it final) or overwrite a method (to prevent that you make it final), but there is nothing like this for constructors.
Static: If you look at the execution a constructor is not static (it can access instance fields), if you look at the caller side it is (kind of) static (you call it without having an instance. Its hard to imagine a constructor being completely static or not static and without having a semantic separation between those two things it doesn't make sense to distinguish them with a modifier.
Abstract: Abstract makes only sense in the presence of overwriting/extension, so the same argument as for 'final' applies

No Constructors can NEVER be declared as final. Your compiler will always give an error of the type "modifier final not allowed"
Final, when applied to methods, means that the method cannot be overridden in a subclass.
Constructors are NOT ordinary methods. (different rules apply)
Additionally, Constructors are NEVER inherited. So there is NO SENSE in declaring it final.

Constructors are NOT ordinary methods. (different rules apply)
Additionally, Constructors are NEVER inherited. So there is NO SENSE in declaring it final.
No Constructors can NEVER be declared final. YOur compiler will always give an error of the type "modifer final not allowed"
Check the JLS Section 8.8.3 (The JLS & API docs should be some of your primary sources of information).

JLS section 8 mentions this.
Constructors (§8.8) are similar to methods, but cannot be invoked
directly by a method call; they are used to initialize new class
instances. Like methods, they may be overloaded (§8.8.8).
But constructors per say are not regular methods. They can't be compared as such.

why constructor can not be static and final are well defined in above answers.
Abstract: "Abstract" means no implementation . and it can only be implemented via inheritance. So when we extends some class, all of parent class members are inherited in sub-class(child class) except "Constructor". So, lets suppose, you some how manage to declare constructor "Abstract", than how can you give its implementation in sub class, when constructor does not get inherit in child-class?
that's why constructor can't be
abstract .

lets see first
final public K(){
*above the modifier final is restrict 'cause if it final then some situation where in some other class or same class only we will override it so thats not gonna happen here proximately not final
eg:
we want public void(int i,String name){
//this code not allowed
let static,, static itz all about class level but we create the object based constructor by using 'new' keyword so,,,,,, thatsall
abstract itz worst about here not at 'cause not have any abstract method or any declared method

Unfortunately in PHP the compiler does not raise any issue for both abstract and final constructor.
<?php
abstract class AbstractClass
{
public abstract function __construct();
}
class NormalClass
{
public final function __construct() {
echo "Final constructor in a normal class!";
}
}
In PHP static constructor is not allowed and will raise fatal exception.
Here in AbstractClass obviously a constructor either can be declared as abstract plus not implemented or it can be declared as something among (final, public, private, protected) plus a function body.
Some other related facts on PHP:
In PHP having multiple constructor __construct() is not possible.
In PHP a constructor __construct() can be declared as abstract, final, public, private and protected!
This code was tested and stood true for in PHP versions from 5.6 up to 7.4!

Why is Java.Lang.Math not abstract?

The "abstract" keyword means you cannot create an instance of the class (an object).
Java.Lang.Math is preceded with the following keywords
public final class Math {
...
}
But no "abstract" keyword. The class simply provides a collection of related static variables and methods, like PI and sin().
Static means that those variables/methods can't be unique between different instances of the object (there is only one copy of those variables/methods associated with the class itself). So why even allow the programmer to create an instance of the class? Why not precede with "abstract"?

final and abstract keywords can't be applied together because final class can't be overridden and abstract classes are meant for override.
A class that is declared final cannot be subclassed that is used for creating an immutable class such as String
It's better explained under JSL section - 8.1.1. Class Modifiers
An abstract class is a class that is incomplete, or to be considered incomplete.
A class can be declared final if its definition is complete and no subclasses are desired or required.
both above statements are contradicting each-other.
If you want to read more about then have a look at Java Tutroial on A Strategy for Defining Immutable Objects
Don't provide "setter" methods — methods that modify fields or objects referred to by fields.
Make all fields final and private.
Don't allow subclasses to override methods. The simplest way to do this is to declare the class as final. A more sophisticated approach is to make the constructor private and construct instances in factory methods.
If the instance fields include references to mutable objects, don't allow those objects to be changed:
Don't provide methods that modify the mutable objects.
Don't share references to the mutable objects.

java.lang.Math is a Utility class (contains only static utility methods).
Correct way to define utility class is to make it final so that no other class can extend it and to have private no-args constructor so that no one can create an instance of the class.
So you won't be able to create instance of class any how. However if you go by abstract approach, you cannot use final and there is no way you can prevent it from being extended. Hence former approach is better.

If it were abstract, someone could do
public class NewMath extends Math {
which frankly speaking makes no sense.
However, you cannot create a new Math instance anyway because its only constructor is private:
private Math() {}

final means you cannot extend it, the reason you cannot create an instance is because the constructor is private. This is how (in java) you define static classes or factory classes.

The Abstract keyword means the class can't be Instantiable but it can be Extended.
And in case of Utility Classes such Math Class,Extending it has no sense. Declaring the no-args Constructor makes it Non-Instantiable and final makes it non-Extendable...So its the Perfect Match .... And If you use Abstract then you can't use Final...

Abstract classes and interface

In an Interface by default the data member are static and final.
Static it is because it can not be instantiated,but why it is final?
and the other question is even the abstract classes can not be instantiated,then why it can have a non static data member??

and the other question is even the abstract classes can not be instantiated,
then why it can have a non static data member??
Because in abstract classes, you can define as much functionality you want, which can be then used by its childs.

Interface variables are static because Java interfaces cannot be instantiated in their own right; the value of the variable must be assigned in a static context in which no instance exists. The final modifier ensures the value assigned to the interface variable is a true constant that cannot be re-assigned by program code.
I wouldn't advise on putting variables in an interface since the interface mainly serves as a blueprint for it's classes.
Why can an abstract class have a non-static data member?
A static variable is one that’s associated with a class, not objects of that class. Generally speaking, the purpose of an abstract class is to provide a skeleton with some non-abstract behavior, but other bits still to be filled in by subclasses which can also define functionality and use the abstract class' variables.

Code implementation in interface

I've been wondering why it's allowed to do a code implementation in an interface, when interfaces are suppossed to contain no code implementation:
public interface someInterface{
String someString = "example";
}
I can make a class implement this interface, without getting an error:
public class someClass implements someInterface
How come?

You are allowed to declare constants in interfaces, which is what you have done. You have not implemented code.
Variables declared in interfaces are implicitly declared public static final.
The JLS, Section 9.3, covers this:
Every field declaration in the body of an interface is implicitly
public, static, and final. It is permitted to redundantly specify any
or all of these modifiers for such fields.

According to java docs
Interfaces form a contract between the class and the outside world, and this contract is enforced at build time by the compiler. If your class claims to implement an interface, all methods defined by that interface must appear in its source code before the class will successfully compile.
Here you are not defined any methods to implement.So you didn't get any error here.

There is no strict condition that an interface must have signatured methods.Remember there are Marker Interfaces too in java.
And secondly , You can declare variables inside interface.
And that variable someString assigned in a static context and shared across all the implemntations by that interface
Point is that the variables inside declared interface are implicitly static and final.You can use them.

Are "public" and "public final" redundant for interface fields?

I was reading this post Why would a static nested interface be used in Java? in particular the first answer. In that answer is written that use the words "public" or "public final" on interface fields are redundant. My question is: why?
Why should I remove them? If I have something like this:
public interface Int1 {
public void add();
void remove();
}
Doesn't it mean that I want add method to be implementated by whatever class while remove method to be implementated only by classes of my same package?

Are “public” and “public final” redundant for interface methods?
Yes.
All methods in an interface are implicitly public and abstract (but not final).
All fields in an interface are implicitly public, static and final.
The JLS states this. It also states that these modifiers can be left out.
Why? Well there are a variety of reasons:
Fields and methods are implicitly public because the point of an interface is to declare an ... interface that other classes can see. (If you want / need to restrict access, this is done via an access modifier on the interface itself.)
Fields are static because if they were not you would be declaring visible instance fields on an object ... and that's bad for encapsulation.
Fields are final because non-final fields would be another way of declaring public static fields ... which are terrible from an OO perspective.
Methods are abstract because allowing method bodies would effectively turn interfaces into abstract classes.
Another reason for making methods abstract and fields static in an interface is that if they didn't, diamond inheritance, and inheritance of a method from two distinct interfaces would both be problematic.
But either way, this is how Java is defined, so the questions are moot ... unless you are thinking of inventing your own programming language.
Note that in Java 8, you can declare methods in an interface, using the default modifier. And in Java 9, you can declare private methods, in some cases. But use of the public keyword is still redundant.
Why should I remove them?
You don't have to remove them. The Java compiler doesn't care.
You can remove them, but you don't have to remove them, unless you are trying to conform to some Java style guidelines that insist on this.
Your code will probably be more readable if you are consistent, but you could make it consistent by using the redundant modifiers everywhere; e.g. adding them rather than removing them.
Doesn't it mean that I want add method be implemented by whatever class while remove method implemented only by classes of my same package?
No it doesn't mean that. Or at least, it might mean that to you, but it won't mean that to the Java compiler, other Java tools ... or other people reading and maintaining your code. IMO, it would be ill-advised to place any meaning on the presence or absence of redundant keywords.

You cannot have a final method declared in an interface. Fields are always final but methods are always abstract (and never final). You cannot define an interface method that is to be implemented only by classes in the same package.* From section 9.3 of the Java Language Specification:
Every field declaration in the body of an interface is implicitly public, static, and final. It is permitted to redundantly specify any or all of these modifiers for such fields.
and from section 9.4:
Every method declaration in the body of an interface is implicitly public (§6.6).
Every method declaration in the body of an interface is implicitly abstract, so its body is always represented by a semicolon, not a block.
It is permitted, but discouraged as a matter of style, to redundantly specify the public and/or abstract modifier for a method declared in an interface.
* As Paul Bellora points out in a comment, you can make the interface itself package-private (or protected, or even private) if you want to restrict its visibility.

Interfaces by definition are abstract so the abstract modifier on the interface is redundant.
Variables in interfaces and annotations are automatically public, static and final, so these modifiers are redundant as well.
As annotations are a form of interface, their fields are also automatically public, static and final just as their annotation fields are automatically public and abstract.
Final classes by definition cannot be extended so the final modifier on the method of a final class is redundant.
reading this: http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_modifier.html

Yes the public is redundant, because in an Interface all methods are implictly public and abstract.
I think its is a bad style to add public, or abstract, because both are implicitly applied.
public interface Int1 {
void add();
void remove();
}
This looks cleaner, and shows that you know, that they are implict public
from Java Language Specification (JLS)
9.4. Abstract Method Declarations
Every method declaration in the body of an interface is implicitly public (§6.6).
Every method declaration in the body of an interface is implicitly
abstract, so its body is always represented by a semicolon, not a
block.
It is permitted, but discouraged as a matter of style, to redundantly
specify the public and/or abstract modifier for a method declared in
an interface.

I write interfaces without the public keyword for methods. It's redundant.