Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • static classes may be a poor choice of a missing feature seeing as Java still doesn't have them (the C# kind). Unless this is a jab at Java? Commented Nov 10, 2017 at 0:05
  • 1
    @immibis Not an intentional stab at Java, but, jeeze, really? static classes seem like such a primitive feature; I kinda imagined that they pre-dated instanced classes. Commented Nov 10, 2017 at 0:20
  • 2
    Seems like saying that piston-engine jets predated jet-engine jets; a "non-instanced class" is generally called a module or namespace , except in languages where all code has to be inside a class. (Or calling a bicycle a manual automobile, or calling a landline phone a stationary cellphone, or ...) Commented Nov 10, 2017 at 0:22
  • @Nat - Having static classes is nice, but not having them changes absolutely nothing. You can just make all members of the class static, and all that you lose is a few kinds of compiler errors if you forget that the class was intended to remain static. Commented Nov 10, 2017 at 12:24
  • @JirkaHanika Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of static classes in most cases anyway. Honestly I picked it as a feature to call out because it seemed really simple, primitive part of C#; I didn't consider that they weren't in Java. Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 11:42