See my code first:
class MyClass {
public static void main(String[] arguments) {
System.out.print("Can you explain it?");
}
}
'System' is a pre-defined class in java API. 'MyClass' is defined by me. How & What relationship develops between both classes that enables me to write 'System.out.print("Can you explain it?")' inside 'MyClass'?
Simply, what relationship develops between class System and MyClass?
> > That's is not the answer. You still fail to
> explain
> > link between System and MyClass.
>
> I think you fail to ask a good enough question.
> All I'd say is that the relationship is:
> MyClass is using the System class.
The question is crystal clear. You must pay attention to it. Now, you say MyClass is using the System class. I ask, what principle of java language makes it legal to use System class inside MyClass?
> The question is crystal clear. You must pay attention
> to it.
I find your attitude a bit offensive. Carry on like this and you'll get more than enough of the big heave-ho outta here.
> Now, you say MyClass is using the System
> class. I ask, what principle of java language makes
> it legal to use System class inside MyClass?
Principle? It's just part of the language. If classes couldn't use each other, it wouldn't be much of a useful language at all.
The relationship is this:
System married Dave.
Dave has a brother called Jo
Jo has 3 kids.
One of them has one leg shorter than the other.
But the eldest got married to a Thai ladyboy, unbeknownst to himself, called Colin.
Colin's dad works in a chicken factory with Chu Man Fat.
Chu Man fat has a twice removed uncle called Swa Lo.
Swa Lo has a sister called Mylene Klass or shortened to MyClass.
Ted.
> The relationship is this:
>
> System married Dave.
> Dave has a brother called Jo
> Jo has 3 kids.
> One of them has one leg shorter than the other.
> But the eldest got married to a Thai ladyboy,
> unbeknownst to himself, called Colin.
> Colin's dad works in a chicken factory with Chu Man
> Fat.
> Chu Man fat has a twice removed uncle called Swa Lo.
> Swa Lo has a sister called Mylene Klass or shortened
> to MyClass.
>
> Ted.
I'm afraid that a serious question is being 'enjoyed' instead of being 'faced' seriously.
> I'm afraid that a serious question is being 'enjoyed'
> instead of being 'faced' seriously.
Well if you're still in the dark as you apparantly are about it, then the question I'd ask myself if I were you would be this:
Am I sure I'm in the right field of study / profession for my capabilities?
>
> I'm afraid that a serious question is being 'enjoyed'
> instead of being 'faced' seriously.
Your question has been answered several times, seriously. You responded with "Pay attention". I wouldn't expect much after demonstrating what a bad attitude you have.
If you don't llike the answer then there is little anyone can do to help you other than take warnerja's advice.
The answer is "there is no relationship". You appear to be getting terms confused. I believe you might be thinking of the "extend" keyword or along those lines. Classes do not have to be "related" in order to use each other. Relationships come into play when you have public/private/protected methods. For example:public ClassA {
protected void doStuff()
{
}
}
public ClassB extends ClassA {
protected void doMoreStuff()
{
doStuff();
}
}
public ClassC {
protected void doMoreStuff()
{
doStuff();
}
}
Here ClassB is able to call doStuff() as it extends ClassA. But, ClassC can not do that as it does not extend ClassA.
Ted.
> Your question has been answered several times,
> seriously. You responded with "Pay attention". I
> wouldn't expect much after demonstrating what a bad
> attitude you have.
>
> If you don't llike the answer then there is little
> anyone can do to help you other than take warnerja's
> advice.
>
> The answer is "there is no relationship". You appear
> to be getting terms confused. I believe you might be
> thinking of the "extend" keyword or along those
> lines. Classes do not have to be "related" in order
> to use each other. Relationships come into play when
> you have public/private/protected methods. For
> example:> public ClassA {
>protected void doStuff()
> {
>}
>
> public ClassB extends ClassA {
>protected void doMoreStuff()
> {
>doStuff();
>
> }
> public ClassC {
>protected void doMoreStuff()
> {
>doStuff();
>
> }
> Here ClassB is able to call doStuff() as it extends
> ClassA. But, ClassC can not do that as it does not
> extend ClassA.
>
> Ted.
Well Ted! i'm not rude at all. I'm novice to java programming and that is why i join the forum 'New To Java'. Now, what you answer is what i was looking for. This part of your answer clears my mind.
"Classes do not have to be "related" in order to use each other. Relationships come into play when you have public/private/protected methods."
Thankyou and i hope you change your opinion about me.
> That's is not the answer. You still fail to explain
> link between System and MyClass.
> he question is crystal clear. You must pay attention to it.
I'm glad I've answered your question. As well as learning Java I would also brush up on your English as the above things u posted before ARE rude whether you like it or not.
Happy coding :o)
Ted.
You must read a Java tutorial.
MyClass use System.out.
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/System.html#out
MyClass can use System.out.println("afasfasfasf") because:
-System is public in a imported package, java.lang (it always is imported implicitly).
-Being a public class of imported package, out property is public.
-println is a public method of declared type of property out of imported class.
ok?
As somebody mentioned previously, System is static, had it not been it would or rather could have been aggregation or composition, depending on how it was used. As far as which principle is being satisfied here, I am not sure what the context of the question is. Its obviously not inheritance, its can be encapsulation, its not polymorphism either. If that doesnt satisfy the principle question, it is not LSP has nothing to do with Open closed principle. or anything closed to that. HTH
> > As somebody mentioned previously, System is
> static,
>
> Actually, "out" is a static member of the System
> class. "System is static" doesn't mean much (if
> anything)--it is certainly not a static class (a
> top-level class cannot be static--only nested classes
> can be).
I meant System.out, guess missed that. Thanks for the correction.
> > The question is crystal clear. You must pay
> attention
> > to it.
> I find your attitude a bit offensive. Carry on like
> this and you'll get more than enough of the big
> heave-ho outta here.
It seems that we have a commander here. "You must pay attention, soldier!" :-)
Jeezuz, and the year is just beginning...
The OPs are becoming more and more worse!
It's always nice when someone comes here and demands answers to their "crystal clear" question when it doesn't appear they're even sure they know what they're trying to ask. You continue to reinforce this opinion by acting like an ignorant, yet arrogant fool who is treating people as if they're his students who he has to whip in to shape.
> It's always nice when someone comes here and demands
> answers to their "crystal clear" question when it
> doesn't appear they're even sure they know what
> they're trying to ask. You continue to reinforce
> this opinion by acting like an ignorant, yet arrogant
> fool who is treating people as if they're his
> students who he has to whip in to shape.
Im sorry, but did you reply to me? (I tried to understand you, but honestly I couldnt. Sometimes I have problems with English)
> MyClass can use System.out.println("afasfasfasf")
> because:
> -System is public in a imported package, java.lang
> (it always is imported implicitly).
> Being a public class of imported package, out
> property is public.
> -println is a public method of declared type of
> property out of imported class.
>
> ok?
Nice answer. You really clarified my mind. Thank you.
Some of you blamed me arrogant, rude etc. You may be right in saying that but wrong in understanding me. I was really irritated by irrelevant answers.
If my question seems to you unclear then don't forget i'm a novice at New To Java.
So, many replies to my message are not related to 'Java'. I may be equally responsible for that. So, i want to close this chapter.
I have got the answer for my message. I APOLOGIZE for my wordings if it hurt you anyway.
Wishing best for you all
Bye
> Some of you blamed me arrogant, rude etc.
Because that's how you acted. This is not a matter of opinion.
> You may be
> right in saying that but wrong in understanding me.
Whether anybody understands you is completely unrelated to whether you were rude.
If you want your question answered, BOTH of the following criteria must be met:
* You must not be a rude arrogant buttface.
* You must communicate your problem clearly.
You failed on both counts.
> If my question seems to you unclear then don't forget
> i'm a novice at New To Java.
You should still be able to communicate. Furthermore, when the people whose help you're soliciting say that you're not communicating clearly, being a whiny ***** and denying that fact while being rude will NOT help your cause. If you don't like it, too bad; that's life.
> You should still be able to communicate. Furthermore,
> when the people whose help you're soliciting say that
> you're not communicating clearly, being a whiny
> ***** and denying that fact while being rude will
> NOT help your cause. If you don't like it, too bad;
> that's life.
What kind of mentality it is? You ignore my big APOLOGIZE and keep on saying a whiny *****? You claim to be the champion of Etiquettes by advising me in that rough way!
Frankly, you deserve the abuse. Saying "I apologize" isn't going to make people suddenly say "Oh well then everything is forgiven" and never say a word about it again. Endure a bit of it and people will stop. Be respectful and polite in the future and people will be inclined to do the same with some exception.
If you lash out at people flaming you for what you said then you perpetuate it.
