Yes. Practically Java allows overriding static method, and No theoretically if you Override a static method in Java then it will compile and run smoothly but it will lose Polymorphism which is the basic property of Java. You will Read Everywhere that it is not possible to try yourself compiling and running. you will get your answer. e.g. If you Have Class Animal and a static method eat() and you Override that static method in its Subclass lets called it Dog. Then when wherever you Assign a Dog object to an Animal Reference and call eat() according to Java Dog's eat() should have been called but in static Overriding Animals' eat() will Be Called.

class Animal {
    public static void eat() {
        System.out.println("Animal Eating");
    }
}

class Dog extends Animal{
    public static void eat() {
        System.out.println("Dog Eating");
    }
}

class Test {
    public static void main(String args[]) {
       Animal obj= new Dog();//Dog object in animal
       obj.eat(); //should call dog's eat but it didn't
    }
}


Output Animal Eating

According to Polymorphism Principle of Java, the Output Should be Dog Eating. But the result was different because to support Polymorphism Java uses Late Binding that means methods are called only at the run-time but not in the case of static methods. In static methods compiler calls methods at the compile time rather than the run-time, so we get methods according to the reference and not according to the object a reference a containing that's why You can say Practically it supports static overring but theoretically, it doesn't.

通过重写，我们可以根据对象类型创建一个多态性质。静态方法与对象无关。因此java不支持静态方法重写。

I like and double Jay's comment (https://stackoverflow.com/a/2223803/1517187). I agree that this is the bad design of Java. Many other languages support overriding static methods, as we see in previous comments. I feel Jay has also come to Java from Delphi like me. Delphi (Object Pascal) was one of the languages implementing OOP before Java and one of the first languages used for commercial application development. It is obvious that many people had experience with that language since it was in the past the only language to write commercial GUI products. And - yes, we could in Delphi override static methods. Actually, static methods in Delphi are called "class methods", while Delphi had the different concept of "Delphi static methods" which were methods with early binding. To override methods you had to use late binding, declare "virtual" directive. So it was very convenient and intuitive and I would expect this in Java.

一般来说，允许“重写”静态方法是没有意义的，因为没有好的方法来确定在运行时调用哪个方法。以Employee为例，如果我们调用regularemploee . getbonusmultiplier()——应该执行哪个方法?

以Java为例，人们可以想象这样一种语言定义:只要静态方法是通过对象实例调用的，就可以“覆盖”它们。然而，这样做只是重新实现常规的类方法，在没有真正带来任何好处的情况下为语言增加冗余。

简单的解决方案:使用单例实例。它将允许重写和继承。

在我的系统中，我有SingletonsRegistry类，它为传递的class返回实例。如果没有找到instance，则创建它。

Haxe语言类:

package rflib.common.utils;
import haxe.ds.ObjectMap;



class SingletonsRegistry
{
  public static var instances:Map<Class<Dynamic>, Dynamic>;

  static function __init__()
  {
    StaticsInitializer.addCallback(SingletonsRegistry, function()
    {
      instances = null;
    });

  } 

  public static function getInstance(cls:Class<Dynamic>, ?args:Array<Dynamic>)
  {
    if (instances == null) {
      instances = untyped new ObjectMap<Dynamic, Dynamic>();      
    }

    if (!instances.exists(cls)) 
    {
      if (args == null) args = [];
      instances.set(cls, Type.createInstance(cls, args));
    }

    return instances.get(cls);
  }


  public static function validate(inst:Dynamic, cls:Class<Dynamic>)
  {
    if (instances == null) return;

    var inst2 = instances[cls];
    if (inst2 != null && inst != inst2) throw "Can\'t create multiple instances of " + Type.getClassName(cls) + " - it's singleton!";
  }

}

我个人认为这是Java设计中的一个缺陷。是的，是的，我理解非静态方法附加到实例，而静态方法附加到类，等等。不过，考虑下面的代码:

public class RegularEmployee {
    private BigDecimal salary;

    public void setSalary(BigDecimal salary) {
        this.salary = salary;
    }

    public static BigDecimal getBonusMultiplier() {
        return new BigDecimal(".02");
    }

    public BigDecimal calculateBonus() {
        return salary.multiply(getBonusMultiplier());
    }

    /* ... presumably lots of other code ... */
}

public class SpecialEmployee extends RegularEmployee {
    public static BigDecimal getBonusMultiplier() {
        return new BigDecimal(".03");
    }
}

这段代码不能像您期望的那样工作。也就是说，特殊员工和普通员工一样有2%的奖金。但如果你去掉了“静态”，那么SpecialEmployee就能得到3%的奖金。

(不可否认，这个例子的编码风格很差，因为在现实生活中，你可能希望奖励乘数在数据库的某个地方，而不是硬编码。但这只是因为我不想用大量与主题无关的代码使示例陷入困境。)

在我看来，您可能想要使getBonusMultiplier成为静态的，这似乎很合理。也许您希望能够显示所有员工类别的奖金乘数，而不需要在每个类别中有一个员工实例。搜索这样的例子有什么意义呢?如果我们正在创建一个新的员工类别，并且还没有任何员工分配给它，该怎么办?这在逻辑上是一个静态函数。

但这并不奏效。

是的，是的，我可以想出很多方法来重写上面的代码，让它工作。我的观点不是它产生了一个无法解决的问题，而是它为粗心的程序员制造了一个陷阱，因为这种语言的行为不像我认为一个理性的人所期望的那样。

也许如果我试着为OOP语言编写一个编译器，我很快就会明白为什么实现它以覆盖静态函数是困难的或不可能的。

或许有一些很好的理由来解释为什么Java会这样做。有人能指出这种行为的好处吗，这种行为能让一些问题变得更简单吗?我的意思是，不要只是把我指给Java语言规范，然后说“看，这是它如何行为的文档”。我知道。但是，它为什么会有这样的表现，有一个很好的理由吗?(除了明显的“让它正常工作太难了”……)

更新

@VicKirk: If you mean that this is "bad design" because it doesn't fit how Java handles statics, my reply is, "Well, duh, of course." As I said in my original post, it doesn't work. But if you mean that it is bad design in the sense that there would be something fundamentally wrong with a language where this worked, i.e. where statics could be overridden just like virtual functions, that this would somehow introduce an ambiguity or it would be impossible to implement efficiently or some such, I reply, "Why? What's wrong with the concept?"

I think the example I give is a very natural thing to want to do. I have a class that has a function that does not depend on any instance data, and which I might very reasonably want to call independent of an instance, as well as wanting to call from within an instance method. Why should this not work? I've run into this situation a fair number of times over the years. In practice I get around it by making the function virtual, and then creating a static method whose only purpose in life is to be a static method that passes the call on to the virtual method with a dummy instance. That seems like a very roundabout way to get there.