Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?

[ProtectAndHide]

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 23:53:35 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>
> I understand disabling the programmer to do certain things are 
> beneficial e.g. to prevent bugs but those above can all be seen 
> as features. What is so terrible about giving the programmer 
> those powers?
>
> Ali

Interestingly, in Swift, you cannot (as far as I can tell) 
disable init() like you can in D. Thus you cannot prevent the 
programmer from creating an instance of a class.

And you can forget about 'C# like' static classes in Swift also.

That leaves the question of why 'any' programming language would 
allow you to instantiate a class that has only static members. 
What exactly are you going to do with that instance? (i.e. there 
are no 'instance' members, just 'type' members).

At least in D you CAN disable the initialiser with @disable.

But even after you've done that, the compiler still:
- allows you to declare a variable of that type
- allows you to declare an array with elements of that type
- allows you to use that type as a type argument
- allows you to use that type as a parameter
- allows you to use that type as a return type

So, getting back to your statement.. under what circumstance 
would a programmer want the 'power' to do any or all of this 
things, if the programmer has explicately disabled the 
initialiser, and the type has only static 'type' members?