same method inheritance

[karimkhan pathan]

interface SuperParent{
	public void method();
}
class Parent{
	
	public void method(){
		System.out.println("Parent class");
	}
}


public class Child extends Parent implements SuperParent {

	
	public static void main(String[]args){
		
		SuperParent sup =new Child();
		sup.method();
		Parent pare =new Child();
		pare.method();
		Child c =new Child();
		c.method();
		
	}
}

output :
Parent class
Parent class
Parent class

I want to know when there no compile time error when we are not implementing method() in the Child class.

[Seetharaman Venkatasamy]

karimkhan pathan wrote:
I want to know when there no compile time error when we are not implementing method() in the Child class.

Because Child has method() implicitly from Parent right?

also interface doent have the method implementation. so there is no Deadly Diamond of Death problem in java unlike C++

[David Newton]

karimkhan pathan wrote:there is no Deadly Diamond of Death problem in java unlike C++

Yes, fortunately, we're forced to re-implement behavior over and over in Java.

While I'd prefer something like traits or mixins, at least multiple inheritance allowed me to remove a ton of duplication.

[Jesper de Jong]

A note about the names of your classes:

Note that "inheritance" in terms of object oriented software has a different meaning than inheritance in the biological sense. Calling classes "Parent" and "Child" confuses the object oriented programming meaning of the word with the biological meaning.

It's very important to understand that subclassing in object oriented programming means that you create a specialized version of the superclass. There is an "is a" relationship between the superclass and the subclass: an instance of the subclass is an instance of the superclass (with things added to it).

If you call your superclass "Parent" and your subclass "Child", then what you're saying is: A Child is a Parent, which is obviously false if you think about the meaning of the words "Parent" and "Child".

It's better to use for example the words "Animal" and "Dog" instead of "Parent" and "Child" - a Dog is an Animal.

There's no such thing as a "parent class" and a "child class" - we call those superclasses and subclasses.

[David Newton]

Jesper Young wrote:It's better to use for example the words "Animal" and "Dog" instead of "Parent" and "Child" - a Dog is an Animal.

So are children, so this works all around. Darn kids.

[Campbell Ritchie]

David Newton wrote: . . . So are children, so this works all around. Darn kids.

Mine aren't (at least if they are they haven't told me yet )

And it's spelt damn.

[W. Joe Smith]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:

David Newton wrote: . . . So are children, so this works all around. Darn kids.

Mine aren't (at least if they are they haven't told me yet )

And it's spelt damn.

I believe he put daRn, not dam, although on my screen that did look like dam.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Yes, I think you are right. It was daRn, so the spelling was correct. Sorry

[David Newton]

I could have been talking about beavers. Or just really industrious children that enjoy civil engineering.

[Campbell Ritchie]

But baby beavers aren't called kids. Maybe you meant the sort of goat which drops trees in rivers?