> So much nonsense here. One class per object is absolutely not the stereotypical example of OO design.
I didn't say that. I said: The stereotypical example is "one class per (concept / class of) real world thing(s)". Like "Rocket" or "Duck".
> If that was Acton's criticism, then he should have said that instead of saying that "code should be designed around a model of the world" is a lie.
It needs just a little context or reading between the lines to understand the intentions instead of twisting words to make accusations.
> Now you're just confused. Acton specifically was criticizing one instance per class in the section I quoted, and now you're saying that's what he's supporting?
I am not confused. He wasn't criticizing "one runtime instance per class", but "one per runtime instance per real world thing". That's something different.
The quote reads rest assured that there is a "Rocket" class which contains data for exactly one rocket. I translate, he suggests to combine all "real world rockets" in a single runtime object instead of representing each rocket in its own runtime object.
Concretely, he would make a "Rockets" class instead of a "Rocket" class, because that typically allows for simpler and more efficient implementation. (Of course, if there were also planes or missiles or bullets, he would think twice before making a Rockets class).
As I commented elsewhere on this page, there are very close analogies to relational databases -- especially the column-store flavour.