Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   If you trash memory, you are writing non-portable, non-standard-conforming
> > code. All bets are off.

> You're making a mistake that is arguably easier to make than using a name 
> that starts with an underline.

> That's exactly what I'm saying: If you make a mistake, all bets are off. So 
> you're counting on the perfection of every author and contributor to your 
> codebase to always do the write thing, because the compiler *doesn't* check 
> that it's right, and the runtime *doesn't* check that it's right.

  Your argumentation just doesn't make any sense.

  The question here is: Are compiler-enforced private member variables a
good thing in programming or not?

  Your argument why they are not: In C++ you can accidentally access them
regardless of the compiler checks.

  I think that your problem is that you have some kind of holy war against
C++, and every single discussion about programming is always somehow turned
to bashing C++. Thus every time you want to discredit some argument, you
go and explain why that thing is done wrong in C++, regardless of whether
C++ in particular was being discussed, or whether it was a more generic
discussion about programming.

  I defended data hiding in general, as a programming paradigm (and I made
that pretty clear). Your very first reply to me was a reference to (and
attack against) C++. You certainly didn't wait. Now you have succeeded in
dragging this thread away from the original question, and made it about
access rights in C++ and why everything is better in all other languages.

  I'm honestly getting tired of your C++ tirades. Every single subject
related to programming must somehow include C++ bashing, regardless of
the subject. That's getting tiresome.

  I'm also getting tired of you twisting what I say. I have admitted that
in C++ you can trash memory, triggering undefined behavior which might,
among other things, modify the state of an object. You somehow have managed
to twist this so that, according to you, I'm saying this is a good thing
(or somehow "better" than other means of accessing private members). I can't
understand where you are getting this. You are just arguing for the sake of
arguing. Example:

> >   Where have I said "there should be a non-portable way to bypass it"?
> > 
> >   There may be a non-portable way of bypassing it. That's different from
> > "there should be".

> So you're saying having non-portable ways of bypassing the typing is better 
> than having portable ways of bypassing the typing?

  How do you even manage to twist my words to almost the exact opposite of
what I'm saying?

  Where exactly do you see the word "better", or any kind of synonym or
reference to it? That's completely your twisted invention.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message