From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,158ce2376534c35d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f7g2000vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Derived private interface Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <970ef0a5-da4b-4463-b411-aa3ef116fad1@f7g2000vba.googlegroups.com> References: <27656578-65aa-48b9-9f89-4ebd4e0cb02a@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <4b2728fc-6127-45d8-a314-9fc491701c26@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <82vcve4bqx.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <4e15b223$0$6541$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4a4f185d-5268-4d73-a5df-8149bd117e0f@h9g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.3.40.82 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1313132493 807 127.0.0.1 (12 Aug 2011 07:01:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:01:33 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f7g2000vba.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.3.40.82; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20555 Date: 2011-08-12T00:00:12-07:00 List-Id: On Aug 12, 6:43=A0am, "Randy Brukardt" wrote: > >I see - but isn't it a special case? > > Yes, in today's world, safety and security are surely a special case -- = =A0 > hardly anyone seems to care, and thus they get PWNed all the time. > > Yes, of course there are ways to enforce safety and security in a dynamic > loading environment, Never in my posts I have mentioned dynamic loading of anything (in fact, I have always stressed that the whole program can be compiled and linked statically) and I think that your focus on safety and security in this discussion is artificial. That is, I don't see in what way OOP, applied in the way I have described, would compromise either safety or security in this kind of systems. Without this connection your "hardly anyone seems to care" is just a strawman argument. I think that everybody on this group cares about safety and security (we would not be here otherwise), we just cannot agree on how to get there while also preserving some other engineering values like flexibility of design evolution or component integration. > There is no one right answer to program design challenges Right. > -- only that no > design at all is wrong! This case was never proposed here. -- Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com