> in the JVM classes are an obligation You're always free to use a final class with a private constructor as a namespace for static methods. Many classes in th

> in the JVM classes are an obligation You're always free to use a final class with a private constructor as a namespace for static methods. Many classes in the standard library are of this kind, including `Math`. It's not ideal (see my next point), but it's a far cry from adding extra object instantiations everywhere. > E.g. in python functions from imported modules easily litter your namespace I think this is more a problem with the modularity features in a language than free functions themselves. In Python, Haskell, and Agda, I make sure that every symbol I use is explicitly imported (or defined in the same file). This makes it way easier to trace where each symbol I use is defined. You're basically forced to do this in Java, too, with exception of wildcard static imports, which I very rarely use. > if I have a python module universe my colleagues hate it if I import the module and call a function like universe.create() [instead of Universe().create()] They hate it? I can understand if your colleagues aren't developers by trade, but I expect anyone who maintains code for a living to understand the language they're using. There will always be dark corners, but this ain't one.