[ozkatz]

I agree grouping behaviors (functions) doesn't require classes, but since Python does not have structs, classes are the only way to provide types (or at least type hints) for non-scalar data. Dicts can only have a key type and value types, while lists/tuples can only carry one type.

    class Person:
        age: int
        name: str

Would have to be boiled down to `dict[str, Any]` (or worse, `tuple[Any]`). You could use `typing.NamedTuple` without defining a class (`NamedTuple('Person', [('name', str), ('age', int)])`) - but subjectively, this is much less readable than simply using a data class.

[Arch-TK]

The typing argument no longer holds. There are typed dicts where you specify field names and the respective key types. But in most cases you're still best off with just a dataclass. Bare classes shouldn't be the first thing you reach for when you want structure.

[ozkatz]

I agree dataclasses are a better alternative when you want a class that represents data :)

> There are typed dicts where you specify field names and the respective key types

The only way to achieve this that I'm aware of is PEP 589: subclassing TypedDict. Which I believe negates the argument in the post.

[the__alchemist]

Dataclasses are effectively structs.