Instantiating objects

Question

This may be a dumb question although due to my poor wording i'm having a hard time getting a good understanding from searching up on it. When instantiating an object why is the declared like so.

Object @object = new Object();
// rather than just
Object @object;

Is this simply just to call the objects constructor or is there something i'm missing?

Because until you give it an instance of a class it is only a null shaped version of the class. — BugFinder, Jun 12 '18 at 06:58
Think of the `@object` variable as a post-it note, and `Object` as a house. This: `Object @object;` only gives you a blank post-it note. This: `new Object()` builds a house, and this: `... = ...` assigns the address of the house to the post-it note, which gives you a post-it note with an address on it. So your first statement constructs the object, declares the variable, and assigns the address of the object (the reference to it) to the variable. Your second statement only declares a variable, as of yet it has no value. — Lasse V. Karlsen, Jun 12 '18 at 07:02

Jeremy Thompson · Accepted Answer · 2018-06-13T00:36:06.703

0

Because thats the syntax to make it a new instance.

edited Jun 13 '18 at 00:36

answered Jun 12 '18 at 06:59

Jeremy Thompson

61,933
36
195
321

Static classes *can* have constructors... At least a single one without any parameters. – Sebastian Hofmann Jun 12 '18 at 07:05
Also, a static class isn't an implementation of a singleton pattern. Why there is some similarity it is not the same thing. – Enigmativity Jun 12 '18 at 07:16
1

If you kept the first sentence, but removed the following three, then I'd say you nailed this answer. – Enigmativity Jun 12 '18 at 07:17
Points taken on board. – Jeremy Thompson Jun 13 '18 at 00:36

Instantiating objects

1 Answers1