In the small, it's just using attrs the way it's described in its documentation. In the large, I've been learning about Rust recently and wrapping my head arou

In the small, it's just using attrs the way it's described in its documentation. In the large, I've been learning about Rust recently and wrapping my head around the design-patterns of static typing. For internal data-structures the benefit is not as clear, but for serialising and deserialising external data (like from config files or JSON APIs) I really prefer having specific, named types instead of a generic bucket of dicts. API documentation can be more concise. You can say "this argument must be an instance of BuildArtifact" rather than "this argument must be a dict with an 'href' key whose value is the URL to a build artifact and a 'hash' key whose value is the SHA256 of that artifact" in every relevant API. Debugging is easier when inspecting a variable starts with "<BuildArtifact ...>" rather than just dumping a dict at you. If you need to operate on a particular kind of data, a named class gives you an obvious place to hang a method, instead of having a loose function rattling about. For operations between two data-types (like 'merge' or 'intersection'), a loose function might still be the most appropriate, but operations like searching or summarizing are naturally methods.