On Saturday, 27 January 2024 at 05:14:18 UTC, FairEnough wrote:
On Saturday, 27 January 2024 at 04:35:11 UTC, Jordan Wilson
wrote:
On Saturday, 27 January 2024 at 02:18:29 UTC, zjh wrote:
On Saturday, 27 January 2024 at 02:12:25 UTC, FairEnough
wrote:
`module private and no class private` goes against the
`consistency, integrity, encapsulation, and redundancy`
pursued by D, just to maintain the uniqueness between `D and
C++`. This is very `funny` and not what `serious language`
should have!
Does Go and Python qualify as serious languages?
Jordan
Go does not have a class type so it's of little value to
compare Go to D in this respect.
I understood zjh's statement to be about `serious languages`, so
it's fair to include Go.
Python does have a class type, but no explicit means to declare
private members, other than the underscore 'convention'.
I don't use python so I don't really know whether and to what
extent that convention is followed. But that fact that there is
this convention would surely demonstrate some need for it??
The fact that python doesn't _enforce_ this demonstrates there
are languages which have accepted a weakening of the concept of
pure OOP object encapsulation, in return for something else
beneficial to the language (I assume).
The only questions for you to ponder are:
(Q1) Are there any circumstances where a class type might need
to retain control over its state from other code within the
same module (including unittest code)?
(Q2) What problems could potentially occur when a class types
state is always leaked into the module.
If I posed these 2 questions to you during a job interview, how
would you answer them?
(Q1) Are there any circumstances where a programmer might need
the guarantees of a safe language?
(Q2) What problems could potentially occur when an unsafe
language is used?
(Q3) Are C/C++ serious languages?
