for classes without properties and without constru...

# getting-started

[y]

for classes without properties and without constructors, should I always prefer object over class?

[Ties]

If it doesnt hold any state I would say objects show intent better (there should only be 1 instance)

[Johann Pardanaud]

JetBrains also encourages you to use objects instead of empty classes when creating a sealed class

[Stephan Schröder]

of course functions are first class in Kotlin, so there's the alternative of simply using top-level functions.
The object in your case is basically only a namespace anyways.

[ephemient]

I wouldn't say "always"; there are some use cases for "empty" yet non-singleton classes. but usually you don't need them

[Goetz Markgraf]

One could ask: why use a class at all? If it is just a container for functions, you can put functions directly in files without any container.

[y]

because as @Stephan Schröder said, objects can be seen as a Kotlin workaround for namespaces. you may not want everything at the top level (I don’t)

[y]

and you’ve got state, then not using a class is a non-starter

[Goetz Markgraf]

I would not agree to that without know the concrete case. Having a data store on top level in a package or publicly available in an object is no big difference.

[y]

it’s useful for code organization (grouping related functions together makes them easier to refactor out, unless you don’t care about having a large amount of small source code files)
there is also a difference in call semantics (ObjectName.function() vs function()) which helps signaling intent

[ephemient]

no, there isn't, since you can import ObjectName.function

[y]

right, but you have the option to do this.