Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Actually, I thought it ended in C++ because that's the only unsafe OOP 
>> language I know of.
> 
>   I can't understand if that means "I haven't studied unsafe OOP languages
> other than C++" or "to my knowledge there are no other unsafe OOP languages".

There are few other unsafe OOP languages I know enough about to discuss. Ada 
and C++ are the only unsafe OOP languages I know, and I don't know Ada well 
enough to know what bad code is erroneous and what bad code is simply UB in 
Ada.

>> It's the only language I know where the compiler 
>> attempts to enforce modularity but in practice fails to do so, by declaring 
>> violation of modularity "undefined" or "compiler-specific" rather than 
>> catching all cases of broken modularity at compile time or runtime.
> 
>   Then you don't know much, do you.

Possibly. What OO languages do you know of where the compiler attempts catch 
all violations of modularity at compile time but in practice fails to do so?

>> I was trying to figure out how well-documented modularity breaking is a 
>> "kludge" but poorly documented unsupported modularity breaking isn't.
> 
>   The connection between my usage of the word "kludge" and your usage
> of the words "unsafe" and "reflection" is purely your invention.

OK. I was confused by the fact that your post had
1) A paragraph about how CLOS allows access to the private variables,
2) a comment about languages lacking data hiding aren't really OO,
3) a lack of specific support for hiding means the OO is kludgey.

I leapt to the conclusion that in 2 and 3 you were actually talking about 
the same thing as you were talking about in 1. That was a bad assumption, 
and started me arguing that CLOS has a reasonable degree of modularity built 
in.

If you weren't talking about CLOS in 2 and 3, I'm not really sure why you 
quoted (1) there.

If you *were* talking about CLOS, I'm arguing that there isn't to my 
knowledge any OO language that does a better job. And none that I know of 
that use "private:".

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message