3 ms·

Well then, C++ doesn't have encapsulation, therefore C++ isn't OO. Hell, even Java isn't OO if you allow JNI.

by corty 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago
I don't want to get into a debate defining what language is OO and what is not. My point was rebutting the notion that C has private data structures by pointing out only languages in which memory is managed by the runtime (e.g. VM) can offer isolation guarantees. Attempts to switch the topic to OS level memory protections are not really what we're talking about here, as the OS doesn't provide language level protections. So yes, if your code leaves the VM then you lose those VM protections.
- bccdee 5y ago
  > I don't want to get into a debate defining what language is OO and what is not I mean, that is the discussion we were having. We weren't talking about language VMs.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    I was replying to a statement that C had isolation and I pointed out that it didn't. The response was a non-sequitur: "So then even C++ isn't OO", and I responded that the question is not whether C++ is OO but whether it's memory is managed. Not sure how any of this is hard to follow or why these arguments should trip you up.
    - bccdee 5y ago
      The statement was specifically that C had encapsulation, within the context of a discussion about whether OOP should be defined as "encapsulation, abstraction, polymorphism, and inheritance." You interpreted that as meaning memory isolation for some reason (even though plenty of clearly-OOP languages do not implement that), and when someone asked you how that definition of encapsulation squared with the fact that C++ is generally considered object-oriented, you said you didn't want to have that conversation. It's not hard to follow and it didn't trip anyone up; you just changed the subject out of nowhere and for no discernible reason by injecting a contextually-inappropriate definition of "encapsulation."

3 ms·

Well then, C++ doesn't have encapsulation, therefore C++ isn't OO. Hell, even Java isn't OO if you allow JNI.

by corty 5y ago

Well then, C++ doesn't have encapsulation, therefore C++ isn't OO. Hell, even Java isn't OO if you allow JNI.

rsj_hn 5y ago
I don't want to get into a debate defining what language is OO and what is not. My point was rebutting the notion that C has private data structures by pointing out only languages in which memory is managed by the runtime (e.g. VM) can offer isolation guarantees. Attempts to switch the topic to OS level memory protections are not really what we're talking about here, as the OS doesn't provide language level protections. So yes, if your code leaves the VM then you lose those VM protections.
- bccdee 5y ago
  > I don't want to get into a debate defining what language is OO and what is not I mean, that is the discussion we were having. We weren't talking about language VMs.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    I was replying to a statement that C had isolation and I pointed out that it didn't. The response was a non-sequitur: "So then even C++ isn't OO", and I responded that the question is not whether C++ is OO but whether it's memory is managed. Not sure how any of this is hard to follow or why these arguments should trip you up.
    - bccdee 5y ago
      The statement was specifically that C had encapsulation, within the context of a discussion about whether OOP should be defined as "encapsulation, abstraction, polymorphism, and inheritance." You interpreted that as meaning memory isolation for some reason (even though plenty of clearly-OOP languages do not implement that), and when someone asked you how that definition of encapsulation squared with the fact that C++ is generally considered object-oriented, you said you didn't want to have that conversation. It's not hard to follow and it didn't trip anyone up; you just changed the subject out of nowhere and for no discernible reason by injecting a contextually-inappropriate definition of "encapsulation."