> Some newer languages don't even deal in classes at all (Rust for example) and with good reason. If one says we need classes for having objects—No we don't.
That's specious reasoning at best.
A class basically means a way to specify types that track specific states and behavior. Afterwards this materializes in other traits like interfaces and information-hiding.
Don't tell me Rust does not support those.
Also, C++ precedes Rust and it supports free functions and objects without member functions from day one. Rust is hardly relevant or unique in this regard. What Rust supports or not is not progress, nor is the definition of progress whatever Rust supports.
> And objects are a concept to manage state over the lifetime of what the object represents, so that might be a worthy concept, but a class?
You're showing some ignorance here. Classes and objects are entirely different concepts. An object is an instance of a class. A class is a blueprint of an object. This is programming 101.
That's specious reasoning at best.
A class basically means a way to specify types that track specific states and behavior. Afterwards this materializes in other traits like interfaces and information-hiding.
Don't tell me Rust does not support those.
Also, C++ precedes Rust and it supports free functions and objects without member functions from day one. Rust is hardly relevant or unique in this regard. What Rust supports or not is not progress, nor is the definition of progress whatever Rust supports.
> And objects are a concept to manage state over the lifetime of what the object represents, so that might be a worthy concept, but a class?
You're showing some ignorance here. Classes and objects are entirely different concepts. An object is an instance of a class. A class is a blueprint of an object. This is programming 101.