On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 02:32:05 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 02:00:17 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 00:28:42 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
On Monday, 14 May 2018 at 19:40:18 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
A slippery slope fallacy isn't helping your case. Write a
DIP if it bothers you so much, as it changes the languages
fundamentally.
Alexander
If 'getting a module to respect the enscapsulation boundaries
the programmer puts in place would change the language so
'fundamentally', then the language 'already' presents big
problems for large complex application development.
Evidence for this claim please.
- Object independence
- Do not violate encapsulation
- Respect the interface
All large software projects are done in (or moving toward)
languages that respect these idioms.
Those that don't, are the ones we typically have problems with.
Isn't that evidence enough?
I'm seeing the opposite, more and more large applications
adopting Python as much as possible and replacing big chunks of
the C++ core and leaving only those C++ chunks where performance
is all that really matters.
Encapsulation boundaries are completely arbitrary and where D
choses to draw the line works very well in practice.
Bye,
Norm
