If we're using a class method, we don't have an instance to call super with. Fortunately for us, super works even with a type as the second argument. --- The type can be passed directly to super as shown below.

Context Explanation

Which is exactly what Python tells me is not possible by saying that do_something () should be called with an instance of B. super() is a special use of the super keyword where you call a parameterless parent constructor. In general, the super keyword can be used to call overridden methods, access hidden fields or invoke a superclass's constructor. The one without super hard-codes its parent's method - thus is has restricted the behavior of its method, and subclasses cannot inject functionality in the call chain.

Insight Material

The one with super has greater flexibility. The call chain for the methods can be intercepted and functionality injected. super() lets you avoid referring to the base class explicitly, which can be nice. But the main advantage comes with multiple inheritance, where all sorts of fun stuff can happen. In fact, multiple inheritance is the only case where super() is of any use.

Final Conclusion

I would not recommend using it with classes using linear inheritance, where it's just useless overhead. I'm currently learning about class inheritance in my Java course and I don't understand when to use the super() call? Edit: I found this example of code where super.variable is used: class A { ... Thirdly, when you call super() you do not need to specify what the super is, as that is inherent in the class definition for Child. Below is a fixed version of your code which should perform as you expect. As for chaining super::super, as I mentionned in the question, I have still to find an interesting use to that.

For now, I only see it as a hack, but it was worth mentioning, if only for the differences with Java (where you can't chain "super").