Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bilsch <bilsch01@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: It doesn't like 'super' where ever I put it.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:17:14 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <jr2vca$32l$2@dont-email.me>
References: <jr27ce$7uo$1@dont-email.me> <ydny5nvgt9d.fsf@shell.xmission.com> <jr2aet$pv7$1@dont-email.me> <ydntxyjgmkb.fsf@shell.xmission.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 20:17:14 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="llALXQ6TxsVqIoSLcrwVyA"; logging-data="3157"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Evp8nODElMYNQqcRQdm4U"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
In-Reply-To: <ydntxyjgmkb.fsf@shell.xmission.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2k7NRd2BYSFxWndnWpEFoaLVj+o=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:15194

On 6/10/2012 9:26 AM, Jim Janney wrote:
> bilsch<bilsch01@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> On 6/10/2012 7:02 AM, Jim Janney wrote:
>>> bilsch<bilsch01@gmail.com>   writes:
>>>> BUILD SUCCESSFUL (total time: 2 seconds)
>>>
>>> Try changing
>>>
>>>       public void CalcFrame1() {
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>       public CalcFrame1() {
>>>
>> OK.  Thanks.  Can you tell me why that makes a difference?
>
> Constructors are fundamentally different from ordinary methods, so most
> object-oriented languages use a different syntax for them.  In Java, a
> constructor definition looks like a method, but without an explicit
> return type and using a name that matches the class name.  In other
> languages the syntax may be different -- for example, in Python the name
> is always __init__ -- but the underlying idea is the same: constructors
> are not ordinary methods and take a different syntax.
>
> Why are constructors different?  Most classes have some code that you
> want to run whenever a new object is created, and it would be tedious to
> have to call it explicitly every time.  I used to mimic OOP in C and you
> had to do things like
>
>      struct Foo* foo = (struct Foo*) malloc(sizeof(struct Foo));
>      foo->init();
>
> Forcing all object creation to go through a constructor makes the code
> simpler and more reliable.  And even when a class has a constructor that
> appears to be empty, there's still some code that the compiler generates
> automatically the make the new object a proper instance of its class.
>
Thanks for  the info.