620

The question is in Java why can't I define an abstract static method? for example

abstract class foo {
    abstract void bar( ); // <-- this is ok
    abstract static void bar2(); //<-- this isn't why?
}
Riyas Valiyadan
  • 367
  • 3
  • 11
hhafez
  • 36,343
  • 33
  • 109
  • 143
  • 10
    Few reasons: static method must have a body even if they are part of abstract class because one doesn't need to create instance of a class to access its static method. Another way to think about it is if for a moment we assume it is allowed then the problem is that static method calls don't provide any Run Time Type Information (RTTI), remember no instance creation is required, thus they can't redirected to their specific overriden implementations and thus allowing abstarct static makes no sense at all. In other words, it couldn't provides any polymorphism benefit thus not allowed. – sactiw Nov 10 '16 at 16:18

26 Answers26

580

Because "abstract" means: "Implements no functionality", and "static" means: "There is functionality even if you don't have an object instance". And that's a logical contradiction.

user207421
  • 289,834
  • 37
  • 266
  • 440
Tomalak
  • 306,836
  • 62
  • 485
  • 598
  • 373
    A more concise answer would be 'bad language design.' Static should mean 'belongs to the class' because that's how it's used intuitively as this very question demonstrates. See "classmethod" in Python. – Alexander Ljungberg May 15 '10 at 01:01
  • @Alexander: This is question not about `static`, but about `abstract static`. Static means "beongs to the class" in Java as well. – Tomalak May 15 '10 at 15:17
  • 12
    @Tomalak I apologize, I was not clear. Of course a static method 'belongs to the class'. Still, it is only in the sense that it lives in the same namespace. A static method is not a method of the class object itself: it does not operate with 'this' as the class object, and it does not participate properly in the chain of inheritance. If it truly was a class method `abstract static` would make perfect sense. It'd be a method of the class object itself which subclass objects must implement. Of course, the way things stands your answer is correct despite my griping about the language. – Alexander Ljungberg May 15 '10 at 22:09
  • 726
    It's not a logical contradiction, it's a language shortcoming, multiple other languages support this notion. "abstract" mean "implemented in subclasses", "static" means "executed on the class rather than class instances" There is no logical contradiction. – Eric Grange Jun 08 '10 at 09:04
  • 11
    @Eric: And *still*, what you say does not apply to `abstract static`: A function X that is "implemented in the subclass" *cannot* at the same time be "executed on the class" - only on the *subclass*. Where it then is not abstract anymore. – Tomalak Jun 08 '10 at 11:21
  • 10
    I agree with @Eric. To be a logical contradiction, the logic would need to originate from outside the rules of java. It may be true that in java, `static` means "functionality, even without an object instance" but this does not contradict `abstract` except by the design of the language. `int` means 'one integer' and `[]` means 'an array' but the fact that Java knows what I want from `int[]` doesn't mean it is contradicting itself, but rather that the human writers of java decided to allow for a certain functionality tied to a particular arrangement of grammar. – plowman Jan 26 '11 at 04:34
  • @uncheck: I understand that the two things (abstract and static) are separate, even orthogonal. Yet a method that is declared as both does not make a lot of sense. Either it is abstract (i.e. *empty* and to be implemented in a child class) or it's static (i.e. *not empty* and callable on the class itself). Maybe you could explain to me how it can logically be both at the same time. – Tomalak Jan 26 '11 at 09:40
  • 76
    @Tomakak: Your logic is circular. `static` doesn't mean "not empty" -- that's just a consequence of Java not allowing static methods to be abstract. It means "callable on the class." (It should mean "callable *only* on the class" but that's another issue.) If Java supported `abstract static` methods I'd expect it to mean that the method 1) must be implemented by subclasses, and 2) is a class method of the subclass. Some methods just don't make sense as instance methods. Unfortunately Java doesn't let you specify that when creating an abstract base class (or an interface). – Michael Carman Mar 29 '11 at 20:10
  • 1
    @Tomalak a clear problem I'm experiencing right now is when you have to know the class of the child object when in an inherited constructor (deep Exception hierarchy): as it is an information belonging to the class, you have to make this method static, but as you can not inherit static methods, you would need to make it abstract in some way; you could use a non-static method, but the problem is that non static methods are not callable in a constructor; so you just can't know the type of your instanciated object in an inherited constructor, unless you give it as an argument ! It's just silly. – Léo Germond Apr 07 '11 at 10:22
  • I agree with Alexander, but one way to do this is to define a static method, have it call the implementation of a singleton instance of the same class. Then that method could be overriden by having the singleton exchanged with another subclass implementation... – mmm Mar 19 '12 at 16:43
  • 8
    As with many things in Java, coming from another language it seems like a limitation, but later you realize it is something you shouldn't do anyway. For example, in Leo's comment, if you need to know the child class in the inherited constructor, that is a blatant violation of basic OOP principles. Also, how do you propose such a method would be invoked? To invoke a static method you need the class name. Using the base class name, how do you know what subclass you intended? Yet if do you know the subclass, it didn't need to be abstract to begin with. Show syntax how this would even work. – Chad N B Aug 28 '13 at 04:07
  • 6
    If there even were a way to invoke it, how would you know if the abstract method was implemented? A class must implement all abstract methods before it can be instantiated, but for a static method, you DON'T instantiate the class. So how do you know in the first place if it is even a valid call? In Delphi, for example, you can create static abstract methods, but you can also get exceptions at runtime when you call such a method. I prefer a compile time error to a runtime error always. Like I said, it seems limiting coming from another language, but Java is trying to help you with good design. – Chad N B Aug 28 '13 at 04:13
  • 2
    Then why in the docs it is stated: "An abstract class may have static fields and static method" while here it cant have one? – meso_2600 Nov 13 '13 at 12:14
  • 4
    Features such as abstract static methods have a tendency to drive poor design. The whole purpose of an abstract method is to allow patterns such as method factory, template method, etc. These are good design patterns when used correctly, and are available due to the polymorphism quality of OO languages. An abstract static method on the other hand, has no power other than to force subclasses to implement something, which is a clear violation of several OO design principles (e.g. OCP). – ethanfar Mar 25 '14 at 07:07
  • This seems like a poor 'feature' to me. I could still subclass a class and wish to override the static methods on that class. This way forces me to instantiate a class just to override methods that could otherwise be declared static if those methods don't mutate or use instance state. – josiah May 05 '14 at 20:53
  • 1
    -1, need more downvotes. `static` does **not** mean "functionality exists without object instance". `static` means "functionality **may** exist without object instance". In the case when it's both `static` and `abstract`, functionality will not exist in the parent class but will be implemented in its subclass. – Pacerier Sep 10 '14 at 18:21
  • @ChadNB, As with many things in Java, coming from Java it seems like the right thing, but later you realize it is something merely an arbitrary language limitation. Abstract static can exist in strongly-typed languages like Java, it will **not** give runtime exceptions............... – Pacerier Sep 10 '14 at 18:22
  • .................Consider a static abstract method `T1 Parent.F1(T2 x)` There will be no runtime exception when we call it's subclass implementation `T1 Child.F1(T2 x)`, so why do you say that we will have runtime exceptions? Also, the whole point of abstract method is that you don't have to know whether it's implemented or not. The subclass class will implement it and the subclass will guarantee that the Liskov contract `T1 Parent.F1(T2 x)` is kept. If there is no subclass, there's no worry anyway since an abstract method can only be called on a subclass. – Pacerier Sep 10 '14 at 18:23
  • I once had a class `A` with a `static` `main(String[] args)` method, and a `B` class with also a `static` `main(String[] args) throws Exception`. And that resulted into a compiler error: could not override method. – MC Emperor Sep 30 '14 at 11:36
  • 5
    @Pacerier Think through it. *How* do you call it? Three ways: (1) Using the subclass name directly, as Child.Method - but in this case it didn't need to be abstract because you're referring to a specific subclass name anyway; (2) through an object - but then it didn't need to be static; (3) through a Class> instance with reflection - but then the compiler can't guarantee that the Class instance has the method defined, and now you're subject to runtime exception if you call an abstract method when you were reflecting Parent. Bottom line: needing static abstract indicates a design flaw – Chad N B Oct 25 '14 at 03:20
  • 1
    @ChadNB, You're almost there. A few more steps and you'll see the light. I shall guide you: Your second option is the correct one. It will be called through the object instance e.g. `obj_child.StaticF()`. So your experience with Java made you think "but then it didn't need to be static"; and the response we give is "but then it didn't need to be **non** static." Static is the default option for methods. **Only methods that reference object instances should be declared non static.** For example, if we ................................................................................. – Pacerier Oct 25 '14 at 10:25
  • 1
    ..............................................................................have a method `f(){ return "hello world"; }`, it should be static because there is no referenced object instance. But if we have a method `f(){ return "hello world " + this.Name; }`, then it should be non-static, because there is an object instance being referenced. Static should always the default option. In Java, we are forced to declare static methods as non-static because static inheritance is broken in Java. [It's a language shortcoming](http://goo.gl/CR3ufN) as Eric stated. – Pacerier Oct 25 '14 at 10:25
  • 3
    @Pacerier On what theoretical grounds is static the "default"? It sounds like you just made that up. Perhaps in procedural programming; in OOP actually I would argue instance methods are the default. Anyway, *why*? If you are calling on an instance, why are you so concerned that it be static? How does that make any practical difference? – Chad N B Oct 25 '14 at 23:05
  • @ChadNB, Perhaps I should break the explanation up into steps. Consider this method `f(){ return "hello world"; }`. You have two choices. 1) Make it static. 2) Make it non-static. Which will you choose and which do you think is the default? – Pacerier Oct 26 '14 at 01:55
  • 4
    @Pacerier Making it static in the parent is less flexible because it means subclasses will never be allowed to use their instance fields. Non-static is a more extensible, reusable design. I only make it static if I need the convenience of calling it without an instance, usually utility methods. If I were only planning to call the method against an instance as in the scenario you presented, I would make it non-static. An instance method is more flexible *even if* the language did support polymorphism of static methods because it does not add unnecessary constraints on subclasses. – Chad N B Oct 26 '14 at 02:15
  • 1
    @ChadNB, It's not an unnecessary constraint, but a necessary one if you care about beautiful code and design. It's an ugly hack to declare an intrinsically static function like `f(){ return "hello world"; }` as nonstatic because by doing so, you unnecessarily [coupled](http://goo.gl/Yx7Ba9) it together with the `this` variable. The kind of "flexibility" you are citing is a violation of low coupling. It's as bad as the "flexibility" you gain by declaring all fields and methods as `public`. – Pacerier Oct 26 '14 at 03:04
  • 1
    Be that as it may, what if I want to declare a class method in an abstract class that I want subclasses to implement? – Flying_Banana Jun 30 '15 at 14:35
339

Poor language design. It would be much more effective to call directly a static abstract method than creating an instance just for using that abstract method. Especially true when using an abstract class as a workaround for enum inability to extend, which is another poor design example. Hope they solve those limitations in a next release.

  • 27
    Java is full of strange limitations. Closures accessing only final variables is another. And the remaining list is almost endless. It is the job of a Java programmer to know them and their workarounds. In order to have fun we have to use something better than Java in our spare time. But I would not bother about. That is the seed to achieve progress. – ceving Dec 04 '12 at 18:48
  • 22
    I believe that what you refer to as "Poor language design" is really more of a "Protective language design", which purpose is to limit the OO principle violations that programers do due to unnecessary language features. – ethanfar Mar 25 '14 at 07:10
  • 24
    Is the concept of "abstract static" a violation of OO principles? – Trevor May 21 '14 at 21:38
  • 8
    @threed, Not at all, but of course there are folks who say that the mere concept of `static` itself is already a violation.... – Pacerier Sep 10 '14 at 18:26
  • 6
    The need for static is a clear demonstration that "OO principles" are not as all-encompassing as usually claimed. – Ben May 12 '15 at 04:29
  • 2
    @Ben There is no absolute **need** for statics. And many OO purists will tell you that statics are an abomination. – b1nary.atr0phy Aug 09 '15 at 04:21
  • 1
    C++ is full of the same limitation. – user207421 Oct 27 '15 at 20:51
148

You can't override a static method, so making it abstract would be meaningless. Moreover, a static method in an abstract class would belong to that class, and not the overriding class, so couldn't be used anyway.

GaryF
  • 22,828
  • 9
  • 56
  • 72
  • 21
    Yes it is really a shame by the way that static methods cannot be overridden in Java. – Michel Dec 16 '08 at 11:29
  • 12
    @Michel: what would be the point? If you want instance based behavior, use instance methods. – Ran Biron Dec 16 '08 at 12:12
  • 9
    This answer is incorrect. Static methods in abstract classes work fine and are commonly used. It's just that a static methods of the class itself may not be abstract. @Michel it doesn't make sense to override a static method. Without an instance, how would the runtime know which method to invoke? – erickson Dec 16 '08 at 15:57
  • 66
    @erickson - Even without an instance, the class hierarchy is intact - inheritance on static methods can work just like inheritance of instance methods. Smalltalk does it, and it is quite useful. – Jared Jan 20 '09 at 22:51
  • 4
    Good news. From official docs for java 7 (see http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/abstract.html): "An abstract class may have static fields and static methods. You can use these static members with a class reference—for example, AbstractClass.staticMethod()—as you would with any other class." – matiasg Apr 25 '12 at 12:55
  • 8
    @matiasg that's nothing new at all. Abstract classes have always been allowed to have static, _non-abstract_ methods. – Matt Ball Aug 09 '12 at 12:41
  • @MattBall that's true, I guess my mind added an "abstract" where it was not written. So: bad news. This is not changed in Java 7. – matiasg Aug 23 '12 at 14:47
86

The abstract annotation to a method indicates that the method MUST be overriden in a subclass.

In Java, a static member (method or field) cannot be overridden by subclasses (this is not necessarily true in other object oriented languages, see SmallTalk.) A static member may be hidden, but that is fundamentally different than overridden.

Since static members cannot be overriden in a subclass, the abstract annotation cannot be applied to them.

As an aside - other languages do support static inheritance, just like instance inheritance. From a syntax perspective, those languages usually require the class name to be included in the statement. For example, in Java, assuming you are writing code in ClassA, these are equivalent statements (if methodA() is a static method, and there is no instance method with the same signature):

ClassA.methodA();

and

methodA();

In SmallTalk, the class name is not optional, so the syntax is (note that SmallTalk does not use the . to separate the "subject" and the "verb", but instead uses it as the statemend terminator):

ClassA methodA.

Because the class name is always required, the correct "version" of the method can always be determined by traversing the class hierarchy. For what it's worth, I do occasionally miss static inheritance, and was bitten by the lack of static inheritance in Java when I first started with it. Additionally, SmallTalk is duck-typed (and thus doesn't support program-by-contract.) Thus, it has no abstract modifier for class members.

Jared
  • 23,116
  • 19
  • 76
  • 105
  • 2
    "A static member cannot be overridden by subclasses" is wrong. It is possible, at least in Java6. Not sure since when it is the case. – Steven De Groote Jul 05 '12 at 15:22
  • 16
    @Steven De Groote A static member indeed cannot be overridden by subclasses. If a subclass has a static method with the same signature as a static method in the superclass, it doesn't override it, it hides it. [http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/override.html](http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/override.html) The difference is that polymorphism works only for overridden, but not for hidden methods. – John29 Dec 07 '13 at 14:24
  • 3
    @John29 Thanks for the clarification, but apart from the naming difference it seems similar in usage. – Steven De Groote Dec 09 '13 at 08:09
  • 2
    @Steven De Groote Yes, it's similar in usage, but the behavior is different. That's the reason why there're no static abstract methods - what's the point of static abstract methods if they don't support polymorphism? – John29 Dec 10 '13 at 17:52
  • 3
    @Steven De Groote: The difference becomes apparent when you have a call to that method in the superclass itself. Suppose Super.foo calls Super.bar. If a subclass implements Subclass.bar, and then calls foo, then foo will still call Super.bar, not Subclass.bar. Hence, what you really have is two entirely different and unrelated methods both called "bar". This is not overriding in any useful sense. – Doradus Sep 02 '14 at 00:10
14

I also asked the same question , here is why

Since Abstract class says, it will not give implementation and allow subclass to give it

so Subclass has to override the methods of Superclass ,

RULE NO 1 - A static method cannot be overridden

Because static members and methods are compile time elements , that is why Overloading(Compile time Polymorphism) of static methods are allowed rather then Overriding (Runtime Polymorphism)

So , they cant be Abstract .

There is no thing like abstract static <--- Not allowed in Java Universe

anshulkatta
  • 1,952
  • 18
  • 29
  • 5
    -1, It is not true that "Java does not allow static method to be overridden because static members and methods are compile time elements". Static type-checking is definitely possible with `abstract static` see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/370962/why-cant-static-methods-be-abstract-in-java/370967#comment40304607_370967 . The **real reason** why Java does not allow static methods to be overridden is because Java does not allow static methods to be overridden. – Pacerier Sep 10 '14 at 18:39
  • Overloading has nothing to do with polymorphism. Overloading and overriding have nothing in common except the prefix "over" in much the same way Java and JavaScript happen to both have "Java" in them. A method's name isn't what identities it, it's its signature that does. so `foo(String)` is not the same as `foo(Integer)` -- that's all it is. – Captain Man Dec 15 '16 at 20:15
  • @CaptainMan Overloading is literally called "parametric polymorphism" because, depending on the type of the parameter, a different method gets called which is polymorphism. – Davor Jan 28 '18 at 15:52
12

This is a terrible language design and really no reason as to why it can't be possible.

In fact, here is an implementation on how it CAN be done in JAVA:

public class Main {

        public static void main(String[] args) {
                // This is done once in your application, usually at startup
                Request.setRequest(new RequestImplementationOther());

                Request.doSomething();
        }

        public static final class RequestImplementationDefault extends Request {
                @Override
                void doSomethingImpl() {
                        System.out.println("I am doing something AAAAAA");
                }
        }

        public static final class RequestImplementaionOther extends Request {
                @Override
                void doSomethingImpl() {
                        System.out.println("I am doing something BBBBBB");
                }
        }

        // Static methods in here can be overriden
        public static abstract class Request {

                abstract void doSomethingImpl();

                // Static method
                public static void doSomething() {
                        getRequest().doSomethingImpl();
                }

                private static Request request;
                private static Request getRequest() {
                        // If setRequest is never called prior, it will default to a default implementation. Of course you could ignore that too. 
                        if ( request == null ) {
                                return request = new RequestImplementationDefault();
                        }
                        return request;
                }
                public static Request setRequest(Request r){
                        return request = r;
                }

        }
}

================= Old example below =================

Look for getRequest, and getRequestImpl ... setInstance can be called to alter the implementation before the call is made.

import java.io.IOException;

import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest;
import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse;
import javax.servlet.http.HttpSession;

import org.springframework.web.context.request.RequestContextHolder;
import org.springframework.web.context.request.ServletRequestAttributes;

/**
 * @author Mo. Joseph
 * @date 16 mar 2012
 **/

public abstract class Core {


    // ---------------------------------------------------------------        
    private static Core singleton; 
    private static Core getInstance() {
        if ( singleton == null )
            setInstance( new Core.CoreDefaultImpl() );  // See bottom for CoreDefaultImpl

        return singleton;
    }    

    public static void setInstance(Core core) {
        Core.singleton = core;
    }
    // ---------------------------------------------------------------        



    // Static public method
    public static HttpServletRequest getRequest() {      
        return getInstance().getRequestImpl();
    }


    // A new implementation would override this one and call setInstance above with that implementation instance
    protected abstract HttpServletRequest getRequestImpl();




    // ============================ CLASSES =================================

    // ======================================================================
    // == Two example implementations, to alter getRequest() call behaviour 
    // == getInstance() have to be called in all static methods for this to work
    // == static method getRequest is altered through implementation of getRequestImpl
    // ======================================================================

    /** Static inner class CoreDefaultImpl */
    public static class CoreDefaultImpl extends Core { 
        protected HttpServletRequest getRequestImpl() {
            return ((ServletRequestAttributes) RequestContextHolder.getRequestAttributes()).getRequest();
        }
    }

     /** Static inner class CoreTestImpl : Alternative implementation */
    public static class CoreTestImpl extends Core { 
        protected HttpServletRequest getRequestImpl() {
            return new MockedRequest();
        }
    }       

}

Used as follow:

static {
     Core.setSingleton(new Core.CoreDefaultImpl());

     // Or

     Core.setSingleton(new Core.CoreTestImpl());

     // Later in the application you might use

     Core.getRequest(); 

}
mmm
  • 18,431
  • 26
  • 99
  • 165
  • 7
    I didn't understand where you have provided an example of an **`abstract static`** method as asked in the question and you have written in bold **CAN BE DONE IN JAVA**. This is completely misguiding. – Blip Jun 28 '17 at 08:13
  • 1
    It doesn't per se allow you to define it as abstract static, but you can achieve a similar result whereby you can change the implementation of s static method using this pattern/hack. It's hardly misguided. It can be done, but using different semantics. – mmm Jun 28 '17 at 11:59
  • This is an example of extending an abstract class, then putting the static methods in the child. This is not an example of CAN BE DONE IN JAVA, in any way whatsoever. – Scuba Steve Feb 02 '19 at 01:08
  • 2
    @ScubaSteve First, you are wrong on your conclusion. Second, it achieves the same result. Meaning static access to a class can be changed by another implementation. It's not an answer as to saying I made the static keyword abstractable, but using this pattern you can could use static methods and still change their implementation. It does have the negative affect of being global only though, but for a test / prod / dev environment it does the trick for us. – mmm Feb 03 '19 at 18:13
5
  • An abstract method is defined only so that it can be overridden in a subclass. However, static methods can not be overridden. Therefore, it is a compile-time error to have an abstract, static method.

    Now the next question is why static methods can not be overridden??

  • It's because static methods belongs to a particular class and not to its instance. If you try to override a static method you will not get any compilation or runtime error but compiler would just hide the static method of superclass.

Rahul Saxena
  • 628
  • 1
  • 9
  • 7
5

A static method, by definition, doesn't need to know this. Thus, it cannot be a virtual method (that is overloaded according to dynamic subclass information available through this); instead, a static method overload is solely based on info available at compile time (this means: once you refer a static method of superclass, you call namely the superclass method, but never a subclass method).

According to this, abstract static methods would be quite useless because you will never have its reference substituted by some defined body.

AndreyS Scherbakov
  • 2,390
  • 2
  • 18
  • 22
3

An abstract class cannot have a static method because abstraction is done to achieve DYNAMIC BINDING while static methods are statically binded to their functionality.A static method means behavior not dependent on an instance variable, so no instance/object is required.Just the class.Static methods belongs to class and not object. They are stored in a memory area known as PERMGEN from where it is shared with every object. Methods in abstract class are dynamically binded to their functionality.

Sunil Kumar Jha
  • 603
  • 6
  • 11
3

I see that there are a god-zillion answers already but I don't see any practical solutions. Of course this is a real problem and there is no good reason for excluding this syntax in Java. Since the original question lacks a context where this may be need, I provide both a context and a solution:

Suppose you have a static method in a bunch of classes that are identical. These methods call a static method that is class specific:

class C1 {
    static void doWork() {
        ...
        for (int k: list)
            doMoreWork(k);
        ...
    }
    private static void doMoreWork(int k) {
        // code specific to class C1
    }
}
class C2 {
    static void doWork() {
        ...
        for (int k: list)
            doMoreWork(k);
        ...
    }
    private static void doMoreWork(int k) {
        // code specific to class C2
    }
}

doWork() methods in C1 and C2 are identical. There may be a lot of these calsses: C3 C4 etc. If static abstract was allowed, you'd eliminate the duplicate code by doing something like:

abstract class C {
    static void doWork() {
        ...
        for (int k: list)
            doMoreWork(k);
        ...
    }

    static abstract void doMoreWork(int k);
}

class C1 extends C {
    private static void doMoreWork(int k) {
        // code for class C1
    }
}

class C2 extends C {
    private static void doMoreWork(int k) {
        // code for class C2
    }
}

but this would not compile because static abstract combination is not allowed. However, this can be circumvented with static class construct, which is allowed:

abstract class C {
    void doWork() {
        ...
        for (int k: list)
            doMoreWork(k);
        ...
    }
    abstract void doMoreWork(int k);
}
class C1 {
    private static final C c = new  C(){  
        @Override void doMoreWork(int k) {
            System.out.println("code for C1");
        }
    };
    public static void doWork() {
        c.doWork();
    }
}
class C2 {
    private static final C c = new C() {
        @Override void doMoreWork(int k) {
            System.out.println("code for C2");
        }
    };
    public static void doWork() {
        c.doWork();
    }
}

With this solution the only code that is duplicated is

    public static void doWork() {
        c.doWork();
    }
mhp
  • 181
  • 6
  • 1
    Since in your final solution abstract class C doesn't has any static methods then why not just let C1 and C2 extend it and override doMoreWork() method and let any other classes make its instance and call required methods. Basically you are doing the same i.e. extending class C using anonymous class and then in C1 and C2 using its static instance to allow access from within a static method but this is not required at all. – sactiw Nov 10 '16 at 16:06
  • I don't understand the context that you have provided here. In your final solution what you can do is call `C1.doWork()` or `C2.doWork()` But you cannot call `C.doWork()`. Also in the example that you have provided, which won't work, suppose if it was allowed, then how will class `C` find the implementation of `doMoreWork()`? Finally I would call your context code a bad design. Why? simply because you have created a separate function for the code that is unique instead of creating a function for the code that is common and then implementing a static function in the class `C`. This is easier!!! – Blip Jun 28 '17 at 09:07
2

Assume there are two classes, Parent and Child. Parent is abstract. The declarations are as follows:

abstract class Parent {
    abstract void run();
}

class Child extends Parent {
    void run() {}
}

This means that any instance of Parent must specify how run() is executed.

However, assume now that Parent is not abstract.

class Parent {
    static void run() {}
}

This means that Parent.run() will execute the static method.

The definition of an abstract method is "A method that is declared but not implemented", which means it doesn't return anything itself.

The definition of a static method is "A method that returns the same value for the same parameters regardless of the instance on which it is called".

An abstract method's return value will change as the instance changes. A static method will not. A static abstract method is pretty much a method where the return value is constant, but does not return anything. This is a logical contradiction.

Also, there is really not much of a reason for a static abstract method.

hyper-neutrino
  • 4,300
  • 1
  • 20
  • 40
2

Declaring a method as static means we can call that method by its class name and if that class is abstract as well, it makes no sense to call it as it does not contain any body, and hence we cannot declare a method both as static and abstract.

pushkin
  • 7,514
  • 14
  • 41
  • 74
  • But we want to have static methods in extending classes. For instance, write a name of the class instead of `getSimpleName()`. We want to have `abstract static String getClassName();` and extend it in all child classes. – CoolMind Nov 19 '20 at 18:03
2

As abstract methods belong to the class and cannot be overridden by the implementing class.Even if there is a static method with same signature , it hides the method ,does not override it. So it is immaterial to declare the abstract method as static as it will never get the body.Thus, compile time error.

Swapnillc
  • 21
  • 1
1

I believe I have found the answer to this question, in the form of why an interface's methods (which work like abstract methods in a parent class) can't be static. Here is the full answer (not mine)

Basically static methods can be bound at compile time, since to call them you need to specify a class. This is different than instance methods, for which the class of the reference from which you're calling the method may be unknown at compile time (thus which code block is called can only be determined at runtime).

If you're calling a static method, you already know the class where it's implemented, or any direct subclasses of it. If you define

abstract class Foo {
    abstract static void bar();
}

class Foo2 {
    @Override
    static void bar() {}
}

Then any Foo.bar(); call is obviously illegal, and you will always use Foo2.bar();.

With this in mind, the only purpose of a static abstract method would be to enforce subclasses to implement such a method. You might initially think this is VERY wrong, but if you have a generic type parameter <E extends MySuperClass> it would be nice to guarantee via interface that E can .doSomething(). Keep in mind that due to type erasure generics only exist at compile time.

So, would it be useful? Yes, and maybe that is why Java 8 is allowing static methods in interfaces (though only with a default implementation). Why not abstract static methods with a default implementation in classes? Simply because an abstract method with a default implementation is actually a concrete method.

Why not abstract/interface static methods with no default implementation? Apparently, merely because of the way Java identifies which code block it has to execute (first part of my answer).

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Blueriver
  • 2,641
  • 2
  • 13
  • 31
1

A static method can be called without an instance of the class. In your example you can call foo.bar2(), but not foo.bar(), because for bar you need an instance. Following code would work:

foo var = new ImplementsFoo();
var.bar();

If you call a static method, it will be executed always the same code. In the above example, even if you redefine bar2 in ImplementsFoo, a call to var.bar2() would execute foo.bar2().

If bar2 now has no implementation (that's what abstract means), you can call a method without implementation. That's very harmful.

Mnementh
  • 47,129
  • 42
  • 140
  • 198
  • 1
    And an abstract static method could be called without an instance, but it would require an implementation to be created in the child class. It's not exactly polymorphism, but the only way to get around it is to have the concrete child implement an interface that "requires" the "abstract static" method. Messy, but workable. – fijiaaron Nov 25 '10 at 02:11
  • 3
    actually, I was wrong. You can't have static methods in an interface either. Language flaw. – fijiaaron Nov 25 '10 at 02:17
1

Because abstract class is an OOPS concept and static members are not the part of OOPS....
Now the thing is we can declare static complete methods in interface and we can execute interface by declaring main method inside an interface

interface Demo 
{
  public static void main(String [] args) {
     System.out.println("I am from interface");
  }
}
Pradeep
  • 8,641
  • 13
  • 23
  • 33
1

Because abstract mehods always need implementation by subclass.But if you make any method to static then overriding is not possible for this method

Example

abstract class foo {
    abstract static void bar2(); 
}


class Bar extends foo {
    //in this if you override foo class static method then it will give error
}
sbgib
  • 4,666
  • 3
  • 12
  • 21
Gaurav
  • 11
  • 1
0

The idea of having an abstract static method would be that you can't use that particular abstract class directly for that method, but only the first derivative would be allowed to implement that static method (or for generics: the actual class of the generic you use).

That way, you could create for example a sortableObject abstract class or even interface with (auto-)abstract static methods, which defines the parameters of sort options:

public interface SortableObject {
    public [abstract] static String [] getSortableTypes();
    public String getSortableValueByType(String type);
}

Now you can define a sortable object that can be sorted by the main types which are the same for all these objects:

public class MyDataObject implements SortableObject {
    final static String [] SORT_TYPES = {
        "Name","Date of Birth"
    }
    static long newDataIndex = 0L ;

    String fullName ;
    String sortableDate ;
    long dataIndex = -1L ;
    public MyDataObject(String name, int year, int month, int day) {
        if(name == null || name.length() == 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Null/empty name not allowed.");
        if(!validateDate(year,month,day)) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Date parameters do not compose a legal date.");
        this.fullName = name ;
        this.sortableDate = MyUtils.createSortableDate(year,month,day);
        this.dataIndex = MyDataObject.newDataIndex++ ;
    }
    public String toString() {
        return ""+this.dataIndex+". "this.fullName+" ("+this.sortableDate+")";
    }

    // override SortableObject 
    public static String [] getSortableTypes() { return SORT_TYPES ; }
    public String getSortableValueByType(String type) {
        int index = MyUtils.getStringArrayIndex(SORT_TYPES, type);
        switch(index) {
             case 0: return this.name ;
             case 1: return this.sortableDate ;
        }
        return toString(); // in the order they were created when compared
    }
}

Now you can create a

public class SortableList<T extends SortableObject> 

that can retrieve the types, build a pop-up menu to select a type to sort on and resort the list by getting the data from that type, as well as hainv an add function that, when a sort type has been selected, can auto-sort new items in. Note that the instance of SortableList can directly access the static method of "T":

String [] MenuItems = T.getSortableTypes();

The problem with having to use an instance is that the SortableList may not have items yet, but already need to provide the preferred sorting.

Cheerio, Olaf.

0

First, a key point about abstract classes - An abstract class cannot be instantiated (see wiki). So, you can't create any instance of an abstract class.

Now, the way java deals with static methods is by sharing the method with all the instances of that class.

So, If you can't instantiate a class, that class can't have abstract static methods since an abstract method begs to be extended.

Boom.

bruhhhhh
  • 121
  • 5
  • Every method in an abstract class needs its class to be extended anyway to be executed, so this isn't an excuse. You could extend the abstract class (at the same time, implementing the abstract method). So this doesn't work as an explanation. – Pere Jan 17 '17 at 16:11
0

As per Java doc:

A static method is a method that is associated with the class in which it is defined rather than with any object. Every instance of the class shares its static methods

In Java 8, along with default methods static methods are also allowed in an interface. This makes it easier for us to organize helper methods in our libraries. We can keep static methods specific to an interface in the same interface rather than in a separate class.

A nice example of this is:

list.sort(ordering);

instead of

Collections.sort(list, ordering);

Another example of using static methods is also given in doc itself:

public interface TimeClient {
    // ...
    static public ZoneId getZoneId (String zoneString) {
        try {
            return ZoneId.of(zoneString);
        } catch (DateTimeException e) {
            System.err.println("Invalid time zone: " + zoneString +
                "; using default time zone instead.");
            return ZoneId.systemDefault();
        }
    }

    default public ZonedDateTime getZonedDateTime(String zoneString) {
        return ZonedDateTime.of(getLocalDateTime(), getZoneId(zoneString));
    }    
}
akhil_mittal
  • 18,855
  • 7
  • 83
  • 82
0

Because 'abstract' means the method is meant to be overridden and one can't override 'static' methods.

Praveen Kumar
  • 458
  • 6
  • 15
  • This answer adds nothing that the previous answers haven't already addressed. – MarsAtomic Sep 30 '15 at 00:16
  • @MarsAtomic I think it's more appropriate then the top voted answer. Also , it's succinct. – Praveen Kumar Sep 30 '15 at 07:46
  • Then you can edit earlier answers to improve them when you have sufficient rep. All you're doing is adding noise to the signal by creating duplicate answers. Please follow Stack Overflow's established rules and customs rather than creating your own and expecting everyone else to follow. – MarsAtomic Sep 30 '15 at 19:23
  • I disagree , please compare my answer to other , especially the top voted answer. – Praveen Kumar Oct 01 '15 at 07:07
  • "Why can't I do this?" Answer: "because you can't". – JacksOnF1re Apr 07 '16 at 22:13
0

Regular methods can be abstract when they are meant to be overridden by subclasses and provided with functionality. Imagine the class Foo is extended by Bar1, Bar2, Bar3 etc. So, each will have their own version of the abstract class according to their needs.

Now, static methods by definition belong to the class, they have nothing to do with the objects of the class or the objects of its subclasses. They don't even need them to exist, they can be used without instantiating the classes. Hence, they need to be ready-to-go and cannot depend on the subclasses to add functionality to them.

Darshan Chaudhary
  • 1,593
  • 3
  • 16
  • 34
0

Because abstract is a keyword which is applied over Abstract methods do not specify a body. And If we talk about static keyword it belongs to class area.

Ashish Ranjan
  • 103
  • 1
  • 1
  • 7
0

because if you are using any static member or static variable in class it will load at class loading time.

Manu
  • 11
  • 2
-1

Because if a class extends an abstract class then it has to override abstract methods and that is mandatory. And since static methods are class methods resolved at compile time whereas overridden methods are instance methods resolved at runtime and following dynamic polymorphism.

frostman
  • 546
  • 2
  • 9
  • 22
-1

You can do this with interfaces in Java 8.

This is the official documentation about it:

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/defaultmethods.html

Maralc
  • 870
  • 1
  • 9
  • 17
Jim Showalter
  • 480
  • 1
  • 7
  • 16
  • 2
    How? I've looked for solutions and couldn't find any. – thouliha Mar 26 '15 at 14:18
  • Wut? You can not. All static interfaces methods has to invoked using the interface class. – mmm Aug 07 '15 at 15:39
  • 8
    This answer is wrong and is misguiding to people new in java. **This does to show any example of abstract static method as it cannot be implemented and stated in other answers** – Blip Jul 09 '16 at 08:04