Why do this() and super() have to be the first sta

Question

Java requires that if you call this() or super() in a constructor, it must be the first statement. Why?

For example:

public class MyClass {
    public MyClass(int x) {}
}

public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
    public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
        int c = a + b;
        super(c);  // COMPILE ERROR
    }
}

The Sun compiler says "call to super must be first statement in constructor". The Eclipse compiler says "Constructor call must be the first statement in a constructor".

However, you can get around this by re-arranging the code a little bit:

public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
    public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
        super(a + b);  // OK
    }
}

Here is another example:

public class MyClass {
    public MyClass(List list) {}
}

public class MySubClassA extends MyClass {
    public MySubClassA(Object item) {
        // Create a list that contains the item, and pass the list to super
        List list = new ArrayList();
        list.add(item);
        super(list);  // COMPILE ERROR
    }
}

public class MySubClassB extends MyClass {
    public MySubClassB(Object item) {
        // Create a list that contains the item, and pass the list to super
        super(Arrays.asList(new Object[] { item }));  // OK
    }
}

So, it is not stopping you from executing logic before the call to super. It is just stopping you from executing logic that you can't fit into a single expression.

There are similar rules for calling this(). The compiler says "call to this must be first statement in constructor".

Why does the compiler have these restrictions? Can you give a code example where, if the compiler did not have this restriction, something bad would happen?

Answer 1

That's because your constructor depends on other constructors. To your constructor work correctly its necessary to other constructor works correctly which is dependent. That's why its necessary to check dependent constructors first which called by either this() or super() in your constructor. If other constructors which called by either this() or super() have a problem so whats point execute other statements because all will fail if called constructor fails.

Answer 2

The parent class' constructor needs to be called before the subclass' constructor. This will ensure that if you call any methods on the parent class in your constructor, the parent class has already been set up correctly.

What you are trying to do, pass args to the super constructor is perfectly legal, you just need to construct those args inline as you are doing, or pass them in to your constructor and then pass them to super:

public MySubClassB extends MyClass {
        public MySubClassB(Object[] myArray) {
                super(myArray);
        }
}

If the compiler did not enforce this you could do this:

public MySubClassB extends MyClass {
        public MySubClassB(Object[] myArray) {
                someMethodOnSuper(); //ERROR super not yet constructed
                super(myArray);
        }
}

In cases where a parent class has a default constructor the call to super is inserted for you automatically by the compiler. Since every class in Java inherits from Object, objects constructor must be called somehow and it must be executed first. The automatic insertion of super() by the compiler allows this. Enforcing super to appear first, enforces that constructor bodies are executed in the correct order which would be: Object -> Parent -> Child -> ChildOfChild -> SoOnSoForth

Answer 3

I know I am a little late to the party, but I've used this trick a couple of times (and I know it's a bit unusual):

I create an generic interface InfoRunnable<T> with one method:

public T run(Object... args);

And if I need to do something before passing it to the constructor I just do this:

super(new InfoRunnable<ThingToPass>() {
    public ThingToPass run(Object... args) {
        /* do your things here */
    }
}.run(/* args here */));

Answer 4

Simply because this is the inheritance philosophy. And according to the Java language specification, this is how the constructor's body is defined:

ConstructorBody: { ExplicitConstructorInvocation_opt    BlockStatements_opt }

The first statement of a constructor body may be:
-an explicit invocation of another constructor of the same class (by using the keyword "this") OR
-of the direct superclass (by using the keyword "super")

If a constructor body does not begin with an explicit constructor invocation and the constructor being declared is not part of the primordial class Object, then the constructor body implicitly begins with a superclass constructor invocation "super();", an invocation of the constructor of its direct superclass that takes no arguments. And so on.. there will be a whole chain of constructors called all the way back to the constructor of Object; "All Classes in the Java platform are Descendants of Object". This thing is called "Constructor Chaining".

Now why is this?
And the reason why Java defined the ConstructorBody in this way, is that they needed to maintain the hierarchy of the object. Remember the definition of the inheritance; It's extending a class. With that being said, you cannot extend something that doesn't exist. The base (the superclass) needs to be created first, then you can derive it (the subclass). That's why they called them Parent and Child classes; you can't have a child without a parent.

On a technical level, a subclass inherits all the members (fields, methods, nested classes) from its parent. And since Constructors are NOT members (They don't belong to objects. They are responsible of creating objects) so they are NOT inherited by subclasses, but they can be invoked. And since at the time of object creation only ONE constructor is executed. So how do we guarantee the creation of the superclass when you create the subclass object? Thus the concept of "constructor chaining"; so we have the ability to invoke other constructors (i.e. super) from within the current constructor. And Java required this invocation to be the FIRST line in the subclass constructor to maintain the hierarchy and guarantee it. They assume that if you don't explicitly create the parent object FIRST (like if you forgot about it), they will do it implicitly for you.

This check is done during compilation. But I'm not sure what would happen on runtime, what kind of runtime error we would get, IF Java doesn't throw a compile-error when we explicitly try to execute a base constructor from within a subclass's constructor in the middle of its body and not from the very first line ...

Answer 5

I totally agree, the restrictions are too strong. Using a static helper method (as Tom Hawtin - tackline suggested) or shoving all "pre-super() computations" into a single expression in the parameter is not always possible, e.g.:

class Sup {
    public Sup(final int x_) { 
        //cheap constructor 
    }
    public Sup(final Sup sup_) { 
        //expensive copy constructor 
    }
}

class Sub extends Sup {
    private int x;
    public Sub(final Sub aSub) {
        /* for aSub with aSub.x == 0, 
         * the expensive copy constructor is unnecessary:
         */

         /* if (aSub.x == 0) { 
          *    super(0);
          * } else {
          *    super(aSub);
          * } 
          * above gives error since if-construct before super() is not allowed.
          */

        /* super((aSub.x == 0) ? 0 : aSub); 
         * above gives error since the ?-operator's type is Object
         */

        super(aSub); // much slower :(  

        // further initialization of aSub
    }
}

Using an "object not yet constructed" exception, as Carson Myers suggested, would help, but checking this during each object construction would slow down execution. I would favor a Java compiler that makes a better differentiation (instead of inconsequently forbidding an if-statement but allowing the ?-operator within the parameter), even if this complicates the language spec.

Answer 6

My guess is they did this to make life easier for people writing tools that process Java code, and to some lesser degree also people who are reading Java code.

If you allow the super() or this() call to move around, there are more variations to check for. For example if you move the super() or this() call into a conditional if() it might have to be smart enough to insert an implicit super() into the else. It might need to know how to report an error if you call super() twice, or use super() and this() together. It might need to disallow method calls on the receiver until super() or this() is called and figuring out when that is becomes complicated.

Making everyone do this extra work probably seemed like a greater cost than benefit.