Java OOP basics

Question

I have a problem that keeps stalling me from advancing further, this error is not logical at all in my opinion , I am learning from a book and the code is from there. This is the code :

package test_area; public class clzzz { class SimpleCircle{ double radius; SimpleCircle() { radius = 1; } SimpleCircle(double newRadius) { radius = newRadius; } double getArea() { return radius*radius*Math.PI; } double getPerimeter() { return 2*radius*Math.PI; } void setRadius(double newRadius) { radius = newRadius; } } public static void main(String[] args) { SimpleCircle circle1 = new SimpleCircle(); } }

This is the error enter image description here

If I eliminate the static from void main the error vanishes, but doing that I am altering the signature of the main method..... I am really confuse, followed the code from the book word by word.

Why in the name of God do I need the static tag ? I don't need to oblige the respective class to have only one instance since I can control it's instances by the names of the objects thus static is just a barrier ?

You have an inner class. That requires an instance of the outer class. You have no such instance. — Sotirios Delimanolis
– Sotirios Delimanolis, Commented May 2, 2014 at 13:58
Using inner classes can be helpful sometimes but the default should be; one class == one file. Although the class clzzz doesn't seem to do anything — Richard Tingle
– Richard Tingle, Commented May 2, 2014 at 13:59

Nathan Hughes · Accepted Answer · 2014-05-02 17:05:19Z

You defined SimpleCircle as an inner class, that is an unnecessary complication here and it is what is keeping this from compiling. Move the SimpleCircle class declaration out from inside the declaration of clzzz and you'll fix the problem.

Alternatively you could make SimpleCircle a static inner class by adding the static keyword. If you keep this as a static inner class then, if you can use it outside of clzzz, you'll need to refer to it using the outer class as well as the inner class (clzzz.SimpleCircle) so that the JVM can find it.

Typically static inner classes are used for organizational purposes, because you have something you use along with another class but it doesn't depend on it (see java.util.Map.Entry for an example, although it's an interface and not a class).

static doesn't mean you can have only one instance. In the context of a class definition it means that there is no dependency on an instance of the outer class. You still can create multiple instances using the static inner class (again, think of Map and Map.Entry, where you can iterate through all the entries of the map, each one is a separate instance of Map.Entry). You can think of static as meaning, "you don't need an object instantiated from the class where this thing is defined."

Making something a non-static inner class means objects of the inner class are accessing things in the scope of the outer class' instance, so you can't create an instance of the inner class without a reference an instance of the outer class, and that's what the compiler is complaining about.

The "Alternatively" part is the answer. Default or not, you can define inner classes and it's not per definition bad coding.
@Bart: that will work, and it's an important part of the answer, so I included it. but it's simpler for the OP's case to un-nest these things because he's not deriving any benefit from them being nested.
More importantly, there is a lesson here: Just because it's in a book doesn't mean the author bothered to make sure it was working. :-)

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Java OOP basics

1 Answer 1

3 Comments

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

3 Comments

Linked

Related