Viv, Anatoly,Bill and Gregory thank you very much. I think I got it now. I was just surprised that in the literature, it is rare that you see examples implemented with static "things". So unless it slaps you in the face that "it"'s static, .... "it"'s not. (you can quote me :) ) is my conclusion.

>>I wonder what the best practice would be when it comes to declare classes (and more importantly methods) static. I have found that in most cases pundits declare non static classes and methods where it would be perfectly workable to have them static.
>>
>>The way I see it is that static is easier to test no?
>
>In addition to the rest of the replies
>
>Static means not related or specific to an instance
>
>eg: a Person class
>
>Instance properties/methods would be Name, BirthDate, address, etc since that are 'things' that belong to a specific Person ( or instance)
>We do not have the same name, do we ?
>A method like CalculateAge() or GetAge() would not be static since it would use the (instance) property DateOfBirth
>
>CalculateAge() could be static when it would accept dateOfBirth as a parameter
>
>Static means applicable to any instance, ie not needing instance properties
>
>Static does not necessarily mean that it is easier to test - the only difference is that you don't have to instantiate the class before using it