This
thread seems to be either a continuation or another conversation of the following thread:
http://www.javaranch.com (see my post for the case for any no-arg constructor).
Briefly, we all agree that in
Java the compiler supplied no-arg constructor is called
a default constructor. Some programmers refer to
any no-arg constructor as a default constructor.
I know that other languages, notably C++, refer to any (that is, either compiler created or programmer coded) no-arg constructor as a default constructor. The usage for both is firmly rooted in C++ programmers' jargon and in the literature.
The debate is whether it is improper in Java to refer to a programmer defined no-arg constructor as a default constructor. I have not seen anything definitively excluding (or including for that matter) calling the no-arg constructor a default constructor in Java. My Java knowledge and library, however, are nowhere near so deep as my C++'s.
Since this is the
SCJP Programmer Certification board, we might ask why this question is relevant. It is relavent only if the SCJP exam asks a question similar to the one in the post cited. Given the ambiguity or, more aptly, lack of definitiveness of the meaning of default constructor in this context, I don't believe the SCJP should ask that question. We are programmers; we are not language lawyers.
Still, for completeness I would like the definitive answer.