People might be afraid of types because in OOP land there's the idea that types aren't mere containers for data.
You have to use encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. Fields and properties shouldn't have public setters. You assign a value only through a method, otherwise you make the gods angry.
You have gazillions of constructors, static, public, protected, private and internal. And you have gazillions of methods, static, public, private, protected and internal.
You inherit at least an abstract class and an interface.
You have at least some other types composed in your type.
Unless you do all this, some people might not consider them proper types.
I had my engineering manager warn me that data classes are "anemic models". Yes, but why? "We should have logic and methods to set fields in classes". "Yes, but why?" "It's OOP and we do DDD and use encapsulation." "Yes, but why? Imagine we have immutable records that hold just data and static classes as function containers, and those functions just act on the records, return some new ones and change no state. This way we can reason with ease about our goddam software, especially if we don't encapsulate state and mutate it all over the place, Uncle Bob, be damned." He shook his head in horror. He probably thinks I am a kind of heretic.
You have to use encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. Fields and properties shouldn't have public setters. You assign a value only through a method, otherwise you make the gods angry.
You have gazillions of constructors, static, public, protected, private and internal. And you have gazillions of methods, static, public, private, protected and internal.
You inherit at least an abstract class and an interface.
You have at least some other types composed in your type.
Unless you do all this, some people might not consider them proper types.
I had my engineering manager warn me that data classes are "anemic models". Yes, but why? "We should have logic and methods to set fields in classes". "Yes, but why?" "It's OOP and we do DDD and use encapsulation." "Yes, but why? Imagine we have immutable records that hold just data and static classes as function containers, and those functions just act on the records, return some new ones and change no state. This way we can reason with ease about our goddam software, especially if we don't encapsulate state and mutate it all over the place, Uncle Bob, be damned." He shook his head in horror. He probably thinks I am a kind of heretic.