'God classes' - terminology

It’s been pointed out that the terminology used ‘God classes’ may be offensive as it uses religious terms

Is there any thought to update the language to be more inclusive?

Just a philosophical question. By excluding religious terms to appease those offended by them in the name of inclusivity, don’t we offend and exclude those who prefer religious terms?

1 Like

The term God Class is used for classes that have too many responsibilities (omnipotent) and because they know too much (omniscient). Lift uses RefactorFirst for its Technical Debt analysis which also uses the term. As a tool, we want to clearly communicate to our users and therefore industry standard terminology is important to adopt. Has anyone run into alternatives the industry is using?

Thanks for the post,


possibly that’s true. We can only try to be as inclusive as possible – in this case the comment came from a colleague, and it seemed a fair question. Overall I think avoiding politics and religion as much as possible helps

There’s certainly 3 layers here - sonatype - refactor first - industry, and if it were to be perceived to be an issue generally (I’m not seeing a lot of this) then it has to be addressed at the route. I do agree that sonatype using the terminology from industry/tools it uses, and indeed the refactor tool using industry tools is important to avoid confusion.

Asking around a few people I knew elicited varying responses - including it not mattering, to that avoiding religious terminology is best. (putting aside the existence of published material) There certainly doesn’t seem to be that much public discourse on this topic

My own perception is that there’s more reluctance on the UK to have too much religion mixed into daily life at a society/org level (fine individually). Yet we’re all looking forward to christmas… :wink:

1 Like