Why java.lang.Object class is concrete class? Why not it is a abstract class?

[kopparapu v kiran kumar]

Merry Crismastmas!!

I have a doubt like this:

Why java.lang.Object class is concrete class? Why not it is a abstract class?

What could be the reason behind making it as a concrete class??

Please clarify my doubt....

Thanks in advance!!

[Seetharaman Venkatasamy]

kopparapu v kiran kumar wrote:
Why java.lang.Object class is concrete class? Why not it is a abstract class?

Java Designer might not be wanted to force you to override a method from object class.

[Jesper de Jong]

Seetharaman Venkatasamy wrote:Java Designer might not be wanted to force you to override a method from object class.

That can't be the reason; an abstract class does not need to have any abstract methods that you would be forced to override.

[Seetharaman Venkatasamy]

Jesper de Jong wrote:an abstract class does not need to have any abstract methods that you would be forced to override.

fine. but what is the need to make a class as an abstract, if the class does not have abstract method?

[Jesper de Jong]

Because a class may still represent some abstract thing that you don't want to be able to instantiate directly, even if it doesn't have any abstract methods.

Back to the original question: I guess that is just how the Java language designers chose it to be. Someone posted a long answer here: Why java.lang.Object is not abstract?