Leonard Brandeis wrote:
I was unable to compile the child class unless I created a constructor for the child class. Is this always the case? I thought it would just use the parent's constructor.
If your child class doesn't have a constructor, Java will create a no-arg constructor that will call the parent's no-arg constructor. If your parent class doesn't have a no-arg constructor, then yes, you will have to create a constructor, in the child class, that calls the correct parent constructor.
The only cause of compilation error I could think of on your example is that Class Parent is implementing a not default constructor. Then the compiler will not create a default constructor for you Class Child because is expecting you to provide explicitly the implementation for all constructor defined at Parent class level that do not have the default constructor signature for the class.
Compilation Error: Implicit super constructor Parent() is undefined for default constructor. Must define an explicit constructor
Leonard Brandeis wrote:When writing a child class such as:
Note that "inheritance" in object oriented programming has a different meaning than in biology. If you create a class "child" that extends class "parent", you're using the biological meaning of the word "inheritance", which doesn't translate to OO programming.
In object oriented programming, inheritance implies an is-a relation between the subclass and the superclass. When you apply this to your example, what you're saying with that line of code is:
A child is a parent.
But as you see, that's nonsense - a child is not a parent. And subclasses are not "children" of their superclasses - we don't call subclasses "child classes". It's better to use other class names if you're talking about inheritance in object oriented programming. For example, call your superclass "Animal" and your subclass "Dog". A Dog is an Animal.