This is merely a syntax trick to let you use an object reference variable (but not the object it refers to) to get to a static method or variable, but the static member is still unaware of the particular instance used to invoke the static member.
The book is quite good I used it to pass my SCJP book. You can find it here: SCJP
[ March 29, 2006: Message edited by: Jerret Halter ] [ March 29, 2006: Message edited by: Jerret Halter ]
Jerret Halter<br /> <br /> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>If you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day; if you teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a lifetime.<hr></blockquote>
I'm with C#. Nothing to do with violation of OO, in my opinion, but the C# style is more clear.
Static memebers are not a part of an object and it makes sense to prohibit the use of calling them using objects.
Allowing to call the static methods on objects can be misleading. Consider the following piece of code
A programmer, who doesn't have the understading of the effect of trying to override a static method, might write a code like this
There is a possibility that the author of the Client class is thinking that he is calling the method defined in the Child class, but actually, it is the Parent version that will be called (as static methods can be hidden, but can't be overridden)
This can be avoided, by making it mandatory to call static methods only on classes and not on instances.
I'm doing laundry! Look how clean this tiny ad is:
SKIP - a book about connecting industrious people with elderly land owners