POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : This is the sort of brokenness... : Re: This is the sort of brokenness... Server Time
7 Sep 2024 03:20:26 EDT (-0400)
  Re: This is the sort of brokenness...  
From: Warp
Date: 20 Mar 2009 03:06:46
Message: <49c34086@news.povray.org>
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  You are seriously claiming that when you wrote "like, in unsafe languages,
where a stray pointer can change private variables without going thru the
class methods? :-)" as a reply to my post you were not directly and
exclusively referencing C++, especially with that smiley?

  What other half-dozen "unsafe languages, where a stray pointer can change
private variables" were you talking about there?

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.