Ah, that explains the confusion. Yeah, I didn't mean static as in the "static" keyword in Java / C++, but as in specified in the statically-typed code. Defining constructors that accept dependencies -- exactly. Ah yeah, I can see how Java exacerbates things here with the one-class-per-file rule -- ugh.
Go doesn't require one class (well, type or struct in Go) per file, and has much more flexibility in how you build packages as a result. I think it's a good thing that dependencies like the logger and the database are passed around explicitly: I've learned the hard way that "explicit is better than implicit" even when it means a bit more boilerplate.
Go doesn't require one class (well, type or struct in Go) per file, and has much more flexibility in how you build packages as a result. I think it's a good thing that dependencies like the logger and the database are passed around explicitly: I've learned the hard way that "explicit is better than implicit" even when it means a bit more boilerplate.