Well in my view, everything is an object so some *qualities* that all should have (quality of object because all are object) are kept in Object class and all classes are implicitly sub class of Object.
Ram, let me complement your question and ask why not? Is there a limitation that you've encountered?? This question is one for the true computer scientist which I won't pretend to be. My guess would lead me to what the proponents (I'm included) of Java hail as it's greatest benefits:
1)Built as an easy to use and pure OO language 2)Is platform independent 3)Built with multi-threading in mind--
Hopefully all see these as fairly accurate statements...
These attributes most likely required a common superclass so our beloved JVM (platform specific) can work appropriately: regaining memory on any system (gc) and control it's threads (wait(), notify(), notifyAll())...
A more creationist view may be that because all matter (Objects in this case) be created from one source
Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Thanks for the post. I agree with you.
By the way, i did not face any limitations, with this implementation.
I have thought of all these common features in a single place holder, easy to implement,OO, etc...
But the perspective in which i had put my question here is to just know what was the design condition, beyond all these, and how it helps in the internals of the JVM, other that this gc, threads, etc...