[commandlinefan]

> The real problem with the class Foo above is that it is utterly and entirely unnecessary

I see this sentiment a _lot_ in anti-OO rants, and the problem is that the ranter is missing the point of OO _entirely_. Hard to fault them, since missing the point of OO entirely is pretty common but... if you're creating classes as dumb-data wrappers and reflexively creating getters and setters for all of your private variables then yes what you're doing _is_ utterly and entirely unnecessary, but you're not doing object-oriented design at all. The idea, all the way back to the creation of OO, was to expose actions and hide data. If you're adding a lot of syntax just to turn around and expose your data, you're just doing procedural programming with a redundant syntax.

[HdS84]

As someone who dies a lot of python, TS, dotnet and java - I disagree. The problem of dotnet and java is that everything is a object. And for many cases, I don't need that object at all, it can be a static class - but honestly, the python concept of a module fits a lot better. It's a grouping of functions in a module, not a class holding functions.