From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2006-12-29T09:44:09+09:00
Subject: Paper on strong Object Oriented Encapsulation (Was: some subject with needless insults)

On Dec 28, 2006, at 16:05, atbusbook@aol.com wrote:
> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/ 
> Scha04bOOEncapsulation.pdf.
>> Ruby [does] not allow a programmer to hide the internal  
>> implementation features (i.e. methods and instance variables) of a  
>> superclass from its subclasses.

I shouldn't have to demonstrate how ivars are shared between  
superclasses and subclasses.  For private method sharing with  
subclasses:

class X; def y() puts "X#y" end; private :y; end
class Y < X; def z() y() end end
X.new.y # raises NoMethodError: private method `y' called for #<X: 
0x3b766c>
Y.new.z # prints "X#y"

Yup.

>> In [...] Ruby, all instance variables are protected from direct  
>> access from outside the object that contains them.

Yup.

> this retard thinks Smalltalk and Ruby don't have private public and
> what not. what a joke. This is almost as bad as James McGovern without
> the pictures

After skimming for the Ruby keyword this paper has nothing wrong.  I  
can't evaluate the Smalltalk or Python claims, but they look accurate  
from my understanding of the two.

This paper seems to be about how dynamic languages' protections are  
not strong enough, and how to make them stronger.

I think the real joke here is you.

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!