Oh, and I forgot to point out the incredible irony of your post: you take me to task for disagreeing with an article that you didn't understand. You wrote:
Re-read my post to which you responded. Follow the links. Re-evaluate your knowledge and experience in the light of the credentials of the author I quoted.
And later you wrote:
The assumption, that encapsulation is king ... is wrong. In so many ways.
You repeatedly argued that I didn't know what I was talking about, but you apparently didn't understand the article you linked to. Just look at the title:
How Non-Member Functions Improve Encapsulation
Scott Meyers
When it comes to encapsulation, sometimes less is more.
When you read closer what he writes, his "less is more" isn't referring to less encapsulation being better. He's arguing that minimal classes give you an opportunity for better encapsulation. He's arguing that "encapsulation is king" and I agree with him even though you have stated that this argument is wrong. What I don't agree with is the assertion that his "one solution" (out of at least six that I previously alluded to) is the only (or best) solution. Your "encapsulation is king ... is wrong" completely misses the point of what the author was arguing for.
Go back and reread what he wrote. Carefully. Go back and reread what I wrote and see how my concrete example does not, in any way shape or form, conflict with what he wrote.
Cheers,
Ovid
New address of my CGI Course.
In reply to Re^6: Why encapsulation matters
by Ovid
in thread Make everything an object?
by wfsp
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |