1. no[1] 2. yes 3. no 4. no 5. no[2] [1] CAMs do not change the issue of functional accuracy in any way. This is irrelevant. [2] This is the result of dev

1. no[1] 2. yes 3. no 4. no 5. no[2] [1] CAMs do not change the issue of functional accuracy in any way. This is irrelevant. [2] This is the result of developers thinking about their objects designs differently, which is good. Class access modifiers are for mixin property selection. That's what they have always been about. The idea that CAMs are for object interface definition is a cargo cult that developed around Java early on (because Java was rather primitive), unnecessarily mixing the concerns. Eventually it ended up in the classroom, to the detriment of the industry. Similarly "final" is an ironic language mechanism that disempowers the users it's meant to aid, because it's assumed the indicator "constant" is insufficient.