Why can't classes with private constructors be subclassed?

Question

Why can't classes with private constructors be subclassed?
I know specifying a private nullary constructor means you dont want the class to be instantiated or the class is a factory or a singleton pattern. I know the workaround is to just wrap all the methods of the intended superclass, but that just seems less wizardly.
Example:
I really, really want to be able to subclass java.util.Arrays, like so:
package com.tassajara.util;
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.List;
public class Arrays extends java.util.Arrays {
    public static List asList(boolean[] array) {
        List result = new LinkedList();
        for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
            result.add(new Boolean(array));
return result;
public static List asList( char[] array) {
List result = new LinkedList();
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
result.add(new Character(array[i]));
return result;
public static List asList( byte[] array) {
List result = new LinkedList();
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
result.add(new Byte(array[i]));
return result;
public static List asList( short[] array) {
List result = new LinkedList();
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
result.add(new Short(array[i]));
return result;
public static List asList( int[] array) {
List result = new LinkedList();
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
result.add(new Integer(array[i]));
return result;
public static List asList( long[] array) {
List result = new LinkedList();
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
result.add(new Long(array[i]));
return result;
public static List asList( float[] array) {
List result = new LinkedList();
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
result.add(new Float(array[i]));
return result;
public static List asList( double[] array) {
List result = new LinkedList();
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
result.add(new Double(array[i]));
return result;
// Now that we extend java.util.Arrays this method is not needed.
// /**JCF already does this so just wrap their implementation
// public static List asList(Object[] array) {
// return java.util.Arrays.asList(array);
public static List asList(Object object) {
List result;
Class type = object.getClass().getComponentType();
if (type != null && type.isPrimitive()) {
if (type == Boolean.TYPE)
result = asList((boolean[])object);
else if (type == Character.TYPE)
result = asList(( char[])object);
else if (type == Byte.TYPE)
result = asList(( byte[])object);
else if (type == Short.TYPE)
result = asList(( short[])object);
else if (type == Integer.TYPE)
result = asList(( int[])object);
else if (type == Long.TYPE)
result = asList(( long[])object);
else if (type == Float.TYPE)
result = asList(( float[])object);
else if (type == Double.TYPE)
result = asList(( double[])object);
} else {
result = java.util.Arrays.asList((Object[])object);
return result;
I do not intend to instantiate com.tassajara.util.Arrays as all my methods are static just like java.util.Arrays. You can see where I started to wrap asList(Object[] o). I could continue and wrap all of java.util.Arrays methods, but thats annoying and much less elegant.

Answer 1

Why can't classes with private constructors be
subclassed?Because the subclass can't access the superclass constructor.
I really, really want to be able to subclass
java.util.Arrays, like so:Why? It only contains static methods, so why don't you just create a separate class?
I do not intend to instantiate
com.tassajara.util.Arrays as all my methods are static
just like java.util.Arrays. You can see where I
started to wrap asList(Object[] o). I could continue
and wrap all of java.util.Arrays methods, but thats
annoying and much less elegant.There's no need to duplicate all the methods - just call them when you want to use them.
It really does sound like you're barking up the wrong tree here. I can see no good reason to want to subclass java.util.Arrays. Could you could explain why you want to do that? - perhaps you are misunderstanding static methods.
Precisely as you said, if they didn't want me to
subclass it they would have declared it final.Classes with no non-private constructors are implicitly final.
But they didn't. There has to be a way for an API
developer to indicate that a class is merely not to be
instantiated, and not both uninstantiable and
unextendable.There is - declare it abstract. Since that isn't what was done here, I would assume the writers don't want you to be able to subclass java.util.Arrays