Michael Flanakin Reacted Tonbsp Of My SDTimes Article Onnbspthenb

Michael Flanakin reacted to  of my SDTimes article on the (relative) failure of dynamic languages within .NET with an interesting proposal: Perhaps every namespace could have a default "utility" class that hides OO complexity. There's even a tiny bit of a precedent in that .NET attributes named SomeAttribute are exposed as Some (with the ...Attribute part of the name hidden away). Similarly, static methods within MyNamespaceUtil would be accessible within MyNamespace without requiring a type-reference.

Hmmm.... As a guy who likes not only object-orientation but strong-typing it's hard for me to assess the attractiveness of this suggestion to the power-users / sysadmins / hackers (in the good sense!) who find the BCL too much of a burden. My thoroughly subjective reaction is that I don't like naming conventions with semantic meanings (and, yes, that means I've never really liked "getX" and "setX"). Thoughts?