Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> I'm saying that C++ does not enforce that you don't change private instance 
>>>> variables from outside the class.
>>>   And this has exactly what to do with whether (compiler-enforced) data
>>> hiding is a good thing or not?
> 
>> Because there's two reasons for data hiding: (1) allow more flexibility in 
>> implementation, (2) allow easier debugging.
> 
>> If you can violate my encapsulation, I don't see the data as especially 
>> encapsulated, is all.
> 
>   You didn't answer my question.

You said the designs of C# and Java are badly broken because they let you 
get to the private variables of an instance using reflection. You then said 
C++ doesn't let you get to a private variable of an instance. I was 
disputing that claim. That's what compiler-enforced data hiding has to do 
with C++.

>   "Is enforced data hiding a good thing or a bad thing?"
>   "In C++ you can bypass the encapsulation, so it's a bad thing."

You skipped a bunch of context in between that I thought still applied. 
Maybe you're reading messages in a different order than I am. That's one of 
the problems when a conversation really gets going online. :-)

If you're not going to apply that context, see my other messages where I 
explain the types of access and seem to be mostly in agreement with you.

>>>   Every single discussion about programming with you turns into C++ bashing,
>>> no matter what the subject.

>> I'm happy to bash any other unsafe OO language you might want to name. :-)

>   It's getting really tiresome and old.

I didn't start out bashing C++ this time. We got pretty far until you 
*seemed to* claim C++ was better at modularity than C# or Java or CLOS. I 
merely listed C++ amongst a half-dozen languages I was criticizing for 
different individual design choices.

-- 
   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