> Uncle Bob is an idiot for making this statement. Taken at face value, just where is the data for the function to operate on come from? With no parameters, it

> Uncle Bob is an idiot for making this statement. Taken at face value, just where is the data for the function to operate on come from? With no parameters, it must come from data at an outer scope, usually a global, which is a bad idea. Within the context of the language Uncle Bob is blathering about, Java, each "function" has an implicit argument, which is the object itself. So even if Uncle Bob wanted a zero-argument function in Java, he's not getting one. The arguments are still coming from an outer scope. You're kind of making the author's point for them here. The entire premise of OO languages is to colocate functionality with the structure of the relevant data for that functionality. If you write a function which takes zero arguments attached to the class Integer (perhaps toString), it does in fact have zero arguments. This makes it simpler to reason about in the context (key word from the point the author was making) of Java. In that context, it is self-evident that any method attached to a class that takes zero arguments is operating entirely on either the data within the class or static data available system-wide. The idea you're presenting is mostly pedantry and you've confused function arguments with data accessible to a function.