I might be biased because I do what you might call "data engineering", but my first thought was "there are three obvious ways to do this", and the accepted answ

I might be biased because I do what you might call "data engineering", but my first thought was "there are three obvious ways to do this", and the accepted answer lists exactly those three ways. You'll find that none of them work very well when you have 100 classes rather than 2, because the "correct" answer is to model your data to be relational in the first place. Yes, sometimes it's unavoidable because the structure of the data is just like that, but more often than not someone somewhere is doing something very wrong. > realize that there’s probably a lot more collected wisdom locked up in writings from the 90’s and early 00’s Yes and no, it's the "design patterns" discussion all over again. Some of it was genuinely interesting, but most of it just was incidental complexity caused by early Java and the absolute horror of pre-standard C++. When you filter that out so that only timeless foundational concepts remain, you'll find that most of it had already been said before.