你问为什么，其他的答案，在我看来，并没有真正说为什么它是可以调用你的超级构造函数，但只有当它是第一行。原因是您并没有真正调用构造函数。在c++中，等价的语法是

MySubClass: MyClass {

public:

 MySubClass(int a, int b): MyClass(a+b)
 {
 }

};

When you see the initializer clause on its own like that, before the open brace, you know it's special. It runs before any of the rest of the constructor runs and in fact before any of the member variables are initialized. It's not that different for Java. There's a way to get some code (other constructors) to run before the constructor really starts, before any members of the subclass are initialized. And that way is to put the "call" (eg super) on the very first line. (In a way, that super or this is kind of before the first open brace, even though you type it after, because it will be executed before you get to the point that everything is fully constructed.) Any other code after the open brace (like int c = a + b;) makes the compiler say "oh, ok, no other constructors, we can initialize everything then." So it runs off and initializes your super class and your members and whatnot and then starts executing the code after the open brace.

如果几行之后，它遇到一些代码说“哦，是的，当你构造这个对象时，这是我想让你传递给基类构造函数的参数”，那就太晚了，这没有任何意义。所以你会得到一个编译器错误。

你问为什么，其他的答案，在我看来，并没有真正说为什么它是可以调用你的超级构造函数，但只有当它是第一行。原因是您并没有真正调用构造函数。在c++中，等价的语法是

MySubClass: MyClass {

public:

 MySubClass(int a, int b): MyClass(a+b)
 {
 }

};

When you see the initializer clause on its own like that, before the open brace, you know it's special. It runs before any of the rest of the constructor runs and in fact before any of the member variables are initialized. It's not that different for Java. There's a way to get some code (other constructors) to run before the constructor really starts, before any members of the subclass are initialized. And that way is to put the "call" (eg super) on the very first line. (In a way, that super or this is kind of before the first open brace, even though you type it after, because it will be executed before you get to the point that everything is fully constructed.) Any other code after the open brace (like int c = a + b;) makes the compiler say "oh, ok, no other constructors, we can initialize everything then." So it runs off and initializes your super class and your members and whatnot and then starts executing the code after the open brace.

如果几行之后，它遇到一些代码说“哦，是的，当你构造这个对象时，这是我想让你传递给基类构造函数的参数”，那就太晚了，这没有任何意义。所以你会得到一个编译器错误。

这是因为你的构造函数依赖于其他构造函数。要使你的构造函数正常工作，其他构造函数正常工作是必要的，这是依赖的。这就是为什么有必要首先检查由this()或super()在构造函数中调用的依赖构造函数。如果由this()或super()调用的其他构造函数有问题，那么什么点执行其他语句，因为如果被调用的构造函数失败，所有的构造函数都会失败。

Java为什么这样做的问题已经有了答案，但由于我无意中发现了这个问题，希望找到一个更好的单行程序的替代品，因此在此分享我的解决方法:

public class SomethingComplicated extends SomethingComplicatedParent {

    private interface Lambda<T> {
        public T run();
    }

    public SomethingComplicated(Settings settings) {
        super(((Lambda<Settings>) () -> {

            // My modification code,
            settings.setting1 = settings.setting2;
            return settings;
        }).run());
    }
}

调用静态函数应该执行得更好，但如果我坚持将代码“置于”构造函数内部，或者如果我必须更改多个参数，并且发现定义许多静态方法不利于可读性，我会使用这种方法。

父类的构造函数需要在子类的构造函数之前调用。这将确保如果在构造函数中调用父类上的任何方法，父类已经正确设置。

你要做的是，将参数传递给超级构造函数是完全合法的，你只需要像你所做的那样内联构造这些参数，或者将它们传递给你的构造函数，然后将它们传递给super:

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

如果编译器没有强制执行，你可以这样做:

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

在父类有默认构造函数的情况下，编译器会自动插入对super的调用。由于Java中的每个类都继承自Object，所以必须以某种方式调用Object的构造函数，并且必须首先执行它。编译器可以自动插入super()。强制super首先出现，强制构造函数主体以正确的顺序执行，即:Object -> Parent -> Child -> ChildOfChild -> SoOnSoForth

你能给出一个代码例子，如果编译器没有这个限制，就会发生不好的事情吗?

class Good {
    int essential1;
    int essential2;

    Good(int n) {
        if (n > 100)
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("n is too large!");
        essential1 = 1 / n;
        essential2 = n + 2;
    }
}

class Bad extends Good {
    Bad(int n) {
        try {
            super(n);
        } catch (Exception e) {
            // Exception is ignored
        }
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Bad b = new Bad(0);
//        b = new Bad(101);
        System.out.println(b.essential1 + b.essential2);
    }
}

An exception during construction almost always indicates that the object being constructed could not be properly initialized, now is in a bad state, unusable, and must be garbage collected. However, a constructor of a subclass has got the ability to ignore an exception occurred in one of its superclasses and to return a partially initialized object. In the above example, if the argument given to new Bad() is either 0 or greater than 100, then neither essential1 nor essential2 are properly initialized.

你可能会说忽略异常总是一个坏主意。好的，这里还有一个例子:

class Bad extends Good {
    Bad(int n) {
        for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
            super(i);
    }
}

很有趣，不是吗?在这个例子中我们创建了多少个对象?一个?两个?或者什么都没有……

允许在构造函数中间调用super()或this()将打开一个令人讨厌的构造函数的潘多拉盒子。

另一方面，我理解在调用super()或this()之前经常需要包含一些静态部分。这可能是任何不依赖于此引用的代码(实际上，它已经存在于构造函数的最开始，但在super()或This()返回之前不能有序使用)，并且需要进行这样的调用。此外，像在任何方法中一样，在调用super()或this()之前创建的一些局部变量可能会在调用super()或this()之后被需要。

在这种情况下，你有以下机会:

Use the pattern presented at this answer, which allows to circumvent the restriction. Wait for the Java team to allow pre-super() and pre-this() code. It may be done by imposing a restriction on where super() or this() may occur in a constructor. Actually, even today's compiler is able to distinguish good and bad (or potentially bad) cases with the degree enough to securely allow static code addition at the beginning of a constructor. Indeed, assume that super() and this() return this reference and, in turn, your constructor has

return this;

最后。以及编译器拒绝代码

public int get() {
    int x;
    for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
        x = i;
    return x;
}

public int get(int y) {
    int x;
    if (y > 0)
        x = y;
    return x;
}

public int get(boolean b) {
    int x;
    try {
        x = 1;
    } catch (Exception e) {
    }
    return x;
}

with the error "variable x might not have been initialized", it could do so on this variable, making its checks on it just like on any other local variable. The only difference is this cannot be assigned by any means other than super() or this() call (and, as usual, if there is no such call at a constructor, super() is implicitly inserted by compiler in the beginning) and might not be assigned twice. In case of any doubt (like in the first get(), where x is actually always assigned), the compiler could return an error. That would be better than simply return error on any constructor where there is something except a comment before super() or this().