Then I clearly misunderstood you when you said that "encapsulation is king ... is wrong" and I apologize for that. It sounded to me like you were disagreeing with the idea of encapsulation rather than placing it in context. However, I would humbly suggest that such a subtle point is easily lost when you start out by being confrontational. (Though I'm as just as guilty of the negative comments as I can get riled up when I'm poked)
And you still haven't pointed out how my response to the OP was at odds with the first article. I made an example out a common OO mistake of how not encapsulating something (and thus failing to abstract it) could lead to serious bugs. This is a well-known failure mode by having poorly distributed responsibilities. In regards to the first link you had posted: I was writing about poorly distributed responsibilities -- a common problem I would like to solve -- and the author was writing about achieving minimal classes -- a common problem he would like to solve. These ideas are not contradictory.
Cheers,
Ovid
New address of my CGI Course.
In reply to Re^8: Why encapsulation matters
by Ovid
in thread Make everything an object?
by wfsp
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |