On Jan 19, 9:21 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr> writes: > > The failure was because a module tested, QA'd and certified within a > > given context (in which it was ok to drop the builtin error handling) > > was reused in a context where it was not ok. And the point is exactly > > that : no *technology* can solve this kind of problem, because it is a > > *human* problem (in that case, not taking time to repass the whole > > specs / tests / QA process given context change). > > In this case it does nothing at all to support your arguments about > the helpfulness or lack of helpfulness of strong encapsulation. You > may as well say that antibiotics are medically useless because they > won't stop anyone from getting killed by a falling piano.
He says that "no *technology* can solve this kind of problem." First of all, I'm not sure that's true. I think technology *could* have solved the problem -- e.g., Spark Ada, had it been properly applied. But that's beside the point. The point is that the problem had nothing to do with encapsulation. The rocket failed because a conversion was attempted to a data type that could not hold the required value. Am I missing something? I don't see what that has to do with encapsulation. The logic seems to be as follows: 1. Ada enforces data hiding. 2. Ada was used. 2. A major failure occurred. Therefore: Enforced data hiding is useless. If that reasoning is sound, think about what else is useless. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list