On Jan 14, 2:44 am, "Russ P." <russ.paie...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 11:51 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> writes: > > > At GE there was no encapsulation in sight on any system I worked on. > > > In fact, our engine simulation was a special-purpose object-oriented > > > language with--get this--no private variables. Some other systems I > > > worked on didn't even use scoping, let alone encapsulation. > > > Where my officemate used to work, the simulation stuff was written in > > Matlab, but the actual flight stuff was written in Ada. I wonder > > if GE did something similar. > > I was going to suggest the same thing.
I thought you were done wasting time with this nonsense. > An engine *simulation* is one > thing; the actual engine control code is another. Guess what systems I worked on that didn't even use scoping? I wrote code for the GP7000 (equipped on some Airbus 380s) and the F-136 (which will be equipped on some F-35 fighters) engine controllers. Neither one used any data hiding. The language was C (not C++), but it was generated from schematic diagrams. Would you like to adopt GE's practice of schematic-generated C with no namespaces or data hiding? No? Then don't be telling me I have to embrace Boeing's. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list