We can have a method name same as a class name in Java but it is not a good practice to do so. This concept can be clear through example rather than explanations. In the below example, a default constructor is called when an object is created and a method with the same name is called using obj.Main().
Example 1:
Java
// Java program to demonstrate that a method// can have same name as a Constructor or// class nameimport java.io.*;public class Main { void Main() { System.out.println( "My name is same as Constructor name!"); } public static void main(String[] args) { // create an object of class // Main Main obj = new Main(); // call the method obj.Main(); }} |
My name is same as Constructor name!
Example 2: To check whether it’s really showing constructor property or not we can check like this.
Java
// Java program to demonstrate// checking whether a method is acting like a// constructor or just a methodimport java.io.*;public class Main { // default constructor Main() { this(5); } /* Main(int a) { System.out.println(a); } */ // Just a method // not a parameterized constructor void Main(int a) { System.out.println("I am a method"); } public static void main(String[] args) { // create an object Main obj = new Main(); // obj.Main(); }} |
Error:
error: constructor Main in class Main cannot be applied to given types;
Main() { this(5); }
^
required: no arguments
found: int
reason: actual and formal argument lists differ in length
1 error
Here we don’t call the void Main(int) through an object, but we call through this(int) and its showing error so this cannot be a constructor. This is going to give you an error showing that no parameterized constructor is available, but we think that we have it already that is void Main(int a). But void Main(int a) is not acting like that to prove that just remove the commented section in above code then only it’s going to work.
Java
// Java program to demonstrate that// constructor is different from methodimport java.io.*;public class Main { // default constructor Main() { this(5); } // parameterized constructor Main(int a) { System.out.println(a); } // method but not a constructor void Main(int a) { System.out.println( "I am just a method, not a constructor"); } public static void main(String[] args) { Main obj = new Main(); // obj.Main(); }} |
5
Example 3:
Java
// Java program to demonstrate// checking whether a method is acting like a// constructor or just a methodimport java.io.*;public class Main { // default constructor Main() { System.out.println("Hey"); } // method, not a constructor void Main() { System.out.println("I can have return type too."); } public static void main(String[] args) { // create an object Main obj = new Main(); }} |
Hey
Finally, we can conclude that when we have a return type for the methods with the name same as a class name then that loses the features the constructors hold and that will behave like a method. And this is a bad practice in programming.
