Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Post History
The question has since been changed to specify certain languages that are not strictly object-oriented. Leaving this answer for anyone coming here looking for info about object-oriented languages. ...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Dana
·
2021-09-30T15:24:44Z (over 2 years ago)
Noting change in question.
- By method-only, I believe you are trying to specifically rule out classes that define member variables.
- There are lots of possibilities where it makes sense for a class to only contain static methods and fields and no member variables. These would be classes of utility methods that make sense to bundle together, but don't operate on member variables.
- For one specific example, take a look in your language of choice (I'm looking at Java and C# at the moment) and you may well find a class called Math. That class will have a lot of mathematical methods defined to provide the tangent of an angle, take an absolute value, round a number, or just provide the constant for pi. These things all make sense to provide together and don't need member variables to be useful.
- Bundles of extension methods, utilities for different datatypes, and even just one-off static methods that are widely usable, but don't have a good home already defined all make good candidates for using this kind of class.
- _The question has since been changed to specify certain languages that are not strictly object-oriented. Leaving this answer for anyone coming here looking for info about object-oriented languages._
- By method-only, I believe you are trying to specifically rule out classes that define member variables.
- There are lots of possibilities where it makes sense for a class to only contain static methods and fields and no member variables. These would be classes of utility methods that make sense to bundle together, but don't operate on member variables.
- For one specific example, take a look in your language of choice (I'm looking at Java and C# at the moment) and you may well find a class called Math. That class will have a lot of mathematical methods defined to provide the tangent of an angle, take an absolute value, round a number, or just provide the constant for pi. These things all make sense to provide together and don't need member variables to be useful.
- Bundles of extension methods, utilities for different datatypes, and even just one-off static methods that are widely usable, but don't have a good home already defined all make good candidates for using this kind of class.
#1: Initial revision
by
Dana
·
2021-08-30T22:39:06Z (over 2 years ago)
By method-only, I believe you are trying to specifically rule out classes that define member variables. There are lots of possibilities where it makes sense for a class to only contain static methods and fields and no member variables. These would be classes of utility methods that make sense to bundle together, but don't operate on member variables. For one specific example, take a look in your language of choice (I'm looking at Java and C# at the moment) and you may well find a class called Math. That class will have a lot of mathematical methods defined to provide the tangent of an angle, take an absolute value, round a number, or just provide the constant for pi. These things all make sense to provide together and don't need member variables to be useful. Bundles of extension methods, utilities for different datatypes, and even just one-off static methods that are widely usable, but don't have a good home already defined all make good candidates for using this kind of class.