The other design smell with these noun-verbers is they’re almost always singletons. Oh you might not realise they’re singletons, because you’ve cleverly hidden

The other design smell with these noun-verbers is they’re almost always singletons. Oh you might not realise they’re singletons, because you’ve cleverly hidden that behind your dependency injection framework: but it’s still a singleton. If there’s no state on it, it might as well be a singleton. It’s a static method in all but name. Oh sure its more testable than if you’d actually used the word “static”. But it’s still a static method. If you’d not lied to yourself with your DI framework and written this as a static method, you’d recoil in horror. But because you’ve tarted it up and called it a “dependency”, you think it’s ok. Well it isn’t. It’s still crap code. What you’ve got is procedures, arbitrarily grouped into classes you laughably call “dependencies”. It sure as hell isn’t OO. What's so terrible about static methods? If you need to perform some sort of calculation that doesn't mutate any state, isn't a static method the correct choice, at least when you're working in a language with no functions? A procedure with no side effects is really just a function, is it not?