6 ms·
> You've never seen Java (or C#) code where a bunch of unrelated functions belong to some meaningless class like "Utility"? I guess I don't see the problem her
by BeefWellington 3y ago
> You've never seen Java (or C#) code where a bunch of unrelated functions belong to some meaningless class like "Utility"?
I guess I don't see the problem here; what's wrong with this idea?
I've seen people claim "It's not OOP" but without any ability to explain why and I'd love to see the practical difference.
- wizofaus 3y agoI don't have any problem with it not being OOP, but I do have a problem with the abuse of the concept of a "class". I also think it's rarely the ideal way to organise your code (even if the .NET core framework has examples of it - WebUtility/HttpUtility etc., and the JRE may well do too, though I can't see any obvious examples in the java.util namespace).
- BeefWellington 3y agoThe entire java.util namespace is the example here. Using static methods on a class seems perfectly fine to me; that's what they're there for. If you have a handy utility class to work around problems in the standard library, then that's an issue with the standard library; Java has this but has gotten better over the years.