Enthuware

A constructor is provided by you, the programmer,

should be

A non-default constructor is provided by you, the programmer,

?

I think the statement is fine in that context. The paragraph is driving the point that a constructor does not necessarily have to initialize instance fields. Since, in general, a constructor is coded by the programmer, he/she can choose what to do in the body. The para also includes the statement, " The default constructor provided by the compiler also doesn’t assign any values to the instance members."

Understood. Very well done, as always. (It's merely a suggestion to bring perhaps a tiny bit more clarity/precision(?) for that specific statement, particularly for "newbies" that may have to reread it more holistically before comprehending that statement within it's larger point.) Thanks.

sure, will add to todo list.

" if you write any constructor in a class yourself, the compiler will not provide the default constructor at all ". if there is no default constructor ,compiler will fail to compile . In that case how can we create constructors explicitly without causing compile errors?

Where did you read that if there is no default constructor, compiler will fail to compile? Please read Section 8.5.2 from the beginning carefully.

The no-args constructor is required only if you want to use a no-args constructor. It is not necessary for a class to always have this constructor.