I know, right?

> So you don't need to worry about functions floating around in a global namespace soup.

Because having classes floating around in a global namespace soup is fundamentally different and should give no worries to anyone. Yet this was argument made in earnest back when arguments about Java's strengths and weaknesses were much more popular.

There's always going to be a namespace soup but at least in Java there's only one kind of thing in the soup.

The famous "anemic namespace soup" language design pattern.

Hey, it could be Perl!

With the 1:1 intended correspondence of (public?) class names to source file names I get how that could be considered a feature for ease of use, compared to C++ where any file could define any name.