[adamzwasserman]

I will complain about the global object.

Even though technically, everything in Python is an object, I feel strongly that programmers should avoid OOP in Python like the plague. Every object is a petri dish for state corruption.

Thee is a very solid list of reasons to use pure functions with explicit passing wherever humanly possible, and I personally believe there is no comparable list of reason to use OOP. * Stack-allocated primitives need no refcounting * Immutable structures reduce synchronization * Data locality improves when you pass arrays/structs rather than object graphs * Pure functions can be parallelized without locks

[nine_k]

I'm 100% on board regarding the use of pure functions and eschewing shared mutable state wherever practical. (Local mutable state is fine.)

But OOP does not necessitate mutable state; you can do OOP with immutable objects and pure methods (except the constructor). Objects are collections of partially-applied functions (which is explicit in Python) that also conceal internal details within its own namespace. It is convenient in certain cases.

[adamzwasserman]

I agree. I sometimes do that.

But very rarely.

[int_19h]

Python doesn't even have frozendicts out of the box.

If you want immutability as a lynchpin, you need to look at a different language. This one is very much not designed for it.