Re: [RFC] Static class

> On 28 Jun 2024, at 14:05, Lynn <kjarli@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 2:48 AM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net > <mailto:mike@newclarity.net>> wrote: >> >> and inheritance is not meant for code reuse. >> >> Just because code reuse in inheritance can be problematic it does not have to be in >> all-cases. Moderation in all things. I used that approach for 10+ years and never once had any of >> the problems people claim about using inheritance for code reuse. This was likely because my needs >> were constrained by the use-case and by nature did not grow out of control with complexity. > > My experience is the opposite. There are subtle bugs I keep running into with static function > and properties causing unexpected behavior. I'm not against having static classes open by > default for the sake of consistency, though my preference would be to avoid the headache altogether > and just make them final by default so I won't ever have to deal with it. Would traits not > solve the problem of horizontal reuse? Hi Lynn, I understand it's frustrating when there are bugs/unexpected behaviour, but wouldn't the (existing) *ability* to add the final keyword to a class solve those issues for you, without preventing others from using the capabilities of parent/child class relationships? Cheers Stephen