Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Bruno Desthuilliers, post: 3773867"] Russ P. a écrit : I must be missing the point : if it's a public attribute, it doesn't need a "property" ? I guess we use the same words for different things here. s/data-hiding/encapsulation/ and I'll wholefully agree. I definitively wouldn't bet my ass on language-level access restriction to protect software from fraud or sabotage. As far as I'm concerned, *enforcing* access-restriction is of no help. Yes. And I also think that trust (and even - to a certain extent - competence) is better built on trust than on distrust. When treated as an irresponsible morons just barely able to type code, most peoples tend to become just that : code-monkeys. I don't know how many developpers work for google, but I bet there all smart enough to not need enforced access restriction. Very few people have a burning desire to shoot themselves in the foot, you know. Take some not-that-trivial projects like Zope/Plone. There are quite a few lines of code involved, and quite a lot of programmers worked on it. Some of them being very average joe programmer FWIW. Guess what ? From experience, it JustWork(tm). Granted, this is not a critical system - but that's not the point here. The point is that _from experience_, most programmers are wise enough to avoid doing stupid things. Sorry, but this makes no sense. How could the lack of *language-enforced* access restriction makes anything more complicated ??? And here we are, finally : *you* don't like this convention (and we've aready been thru that discussion IIRC). Guess what ? As far as I'm concerned, I just *love* this convention. Because I *never* have to ask myself if some attribute is interface or implementation. If you believe data-hiding will protect your code from fraud, sabotage or any other malevolence, then you already have this problem IMHO. [/QUOTE]

Verification