>In an OO program all state is global, because you can't understand any given object's behaviour without knowing what its state is and what the behaviours of all the objects it communicates with are, and you can't understand those without knowing their states either.
By that logic all state in any program is global.
But if I'm writing an MMO server my GoldCoin class doesn't need to know about the client's connection state.
Have you actually written or worked with OO code before? Your comment reads like you have not.
> By that logic all state in any program is global.
All state in any program is global in the sense of being reachable from top-level. You can, and should, make your state hierarchical - reachable from top-level should not mean reachable from anywhere, you can have (non-toplevel) parts of your program that only access parts of your state. Unfortunately OO is uniquely bad at this, because objects are encouraged to have hidden coupling.
> But if I'm writing an MMO server my GoldCoin class doesn't need to know about the client's connection state.
But you have no way of knowing or enforcing that. "You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle" - your GoldCoin might contain a ("encapsulated" i.e. hidden) reference to another class that has a reference to another class and so on, and so eventually it does depend on the client's connection state.
> Have you actually written or worked with OO code before?
Yes, for many years, which is why I've become an advocate of FP style instead.
> All state in any program is global in the sense of being reachable from top-level.
Well, think about a random number generator. It has some internal state, which gets set by some action taken (perhaps indirectly) by the top level. And that state is "reachable" by getting the next random number, but that random number may not be a direct representation of any part of the generator's state. Also, after initialization, the generator's state should not be alterable by the rest of the program.
So to me, that's not really "reachable". The entire point of encapulating that state in the random number generator is to make it not reachable.
That's a perfect example; in my experience that kind of RNG state is global (or at least, it has all the problems of traditional global state). Potentially any object might behave in a strange way, because it contains a reference to that RNG (hidden from you): you might find a sequence of calls that usually, but not always, reproduces a bug in test, and then it turns out that it depends on whether other tests running in parallel are affecting the RNG state. Essentially any test you write that's bigger than a single-class mock test has to be aware of the RNG and stub it out, even if you're testing something that on the face of it has nothing to do with RNG.
In a functional program you would make the RNG state an explicit value, and pass it where it's used (but not where it isn't - so there might be large program regions that don't have access to it). It'll be an explicit part of the top-level state of your program. I'd argue that that's not actually any more global - or at least, it causes fewer problems - than the OO approach.
By that logic all state in any program is global.
But if I'm writing an MMO server my GoldCoin class doesn't need to know about the client's connection state.
Have you actually written or worked with OO code before? Your comment reads like you have not.