> That has been my experience. I hardly ever write classes anymore; I write functions. But I don’t write functions quite the way I did before I spent years writ

> That has been my experience. I hardly ever write classes anymore; I write functions. But I don’t write functions quite the way I did before I spent years writing classes. > And while I don’t often write classes, I do often use classes that come from libraries. Sometimes these objects seem like they’d be better off as bare functions, but I imagine the same libraries would be harder to use if no functions were wrapped in objects. I noticed this soon after I got involved with Java. Programmers were using classes where I would use methods. They would have objects which did things where I would have passive objects which have things done to them by methods. A specific example might a Parser class with a parse method, where I would define an entirely passive Grammar object with a parse method, and of course a Tokenizer object where I would use a tokenize method, calling an InputStreamReader class (instead of just InputStream) with a read method. I concluded that any class name ending in "er" was almost invariably unnecessary overhead. I wondered where this came from. All I could think was in object orientation's roots in simulation, where it's entirely appropriate to have objects which do things, and it was copied from there.