This week's book giveaway is in the OCAJP 8 forum. We're giving away four copies of OCA Java SE 8 Programmer I Study Guide and have Edward Finegan & Robert Liguori on-line! See this thread for details.
I don't know the actual answer but i think it has to stop at some place, say if Object class had a super class you would ask why this super class of Object class doesn't have another super class and the cycle would go on and on.
Secondly there are certain things which we have accept the way they are made by the people who made Java and lastly being an OOP language i think Object class being the top class is well justified.
Not a good sense, but true as Object class is parent for explicitly non-extending classes.
Object class was provided for basing functionalities that is required by every class that we create for running in JVM, identification, etc [Look at the methods]. So other classes by default extend it.
Now, for that matter, the basic functionalities are already in Object class, so why would it require to extend any other class!
The Object class is at the topmost position in the hierarchy, until the JVM is revisioned for toppling that decision.
You create "something" out of nothing. Things A, B and C were introduced following your something, so they extend it. Why should your "something" thats born out of nothing should extend "something else".
The biggest gamble will be to ask a question whose answer you know in that it will challenge your theory | www.TechAspire.blogspot.in