Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Let's ask this: Why doesn't C++ have encapsulation?
> > 
> >   Clearly we have a different definition of "encapsulation".

> I explained why encapsulation is important and why unsafe languages don't 
> have it.  What's your definition of encapsulation, and why does it make a 
> difference to the programming productivity?

  It seems that in your quest to belittle "unsafe languages" you have taken
some obscure definition of a term somewhere, treat it as if it was the
unversally accepted definition, and point out how your beloved "unsafe
languages" don't conform to that obscure definition.

  Encapsulation in object-oriented languages is not *my* definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_%28object-oriented_programming%29

  Nowhere do I see anything related to what you wrote.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message