So that all things Java will have a concrete foundation? (cheesy)
Interesting question, never really thought to ask this before but I suppose it's not declared abstract because it has no abstract methods. I would think others elsewhere would have been given this answer. If so, why do you not find that satisfactory? If not, well, huh ... seems pretty straightforward.
Mahesh Bamane wrote:Why Object class in not declared as an abstract in Java API, this is just out of interest. I've read few blogs on this but couldn't get much satisfied answer. So just thought of posting here.
The problem with "WHY" questions, especially when related to classes since Java 1.0, is that you need to have one of the original Java designers to answer it. Any other answer (from someone else) would be speculating.
Personally, I don't know. But I can speculate why it hasn't been made abstract since (meaning "after") Java 1.0. My speculation is that it is possible to use an Object instance as a synchronization lock, and if they made it abstract after Java 1.0, it would have broken backward compatibility.