Other languages can sport a class full of static methods and a private stub constructor, all C# offers is the means to force a class to only contain static methods and block the constructor.
You can make an all-static class in any OOP language that supports class-level methods and members.
That's my point. This argument is all semantics. There's a million little ways to create something with the functional utility of a Singleton, and there's no sense in pretending that they're vastly different.
It was just idle curiosity - I wasn't familiar with the term "static class", looked it up and wondered if that particular set of features (and the term) were used in any other languages.
Nothing special about it, it was just a cheap feature to add (static was already reserved and not previously added before class) while helping to exemplify a common protocol.
The one nice thing it does provide is access to defining extension methods, which aren't allowed outside static classes.
You can make an all-static class in any OOP language that supports class-level methods and members.
That's my point. This argument is all semantics. There's a million little ways to create something with the functional utility of a Singleton, and there's no sense in pretending that they're vastly different.