What is meant by “protection” in real OOP?

Re:What is meant by “protection” in real OOP? by 7373737373 on Friday April 24, 2020 @10:39AM (#22968413)

Encapsulation[0] might be the term you are looking for. Enforcing object boundaries makes it easier to reason about program behavior and enforce security guarantees.

If objects can only change their own data, then all change affecting the object is either caused by the object itself, or indirectly by another when information crosses the interface the boundary presents (e.g. a message was received).

Most languages use a memory model that doesn't even have the concept of access rights, everything can potentially affect anything else. If your program has to be secure, this is a nightmare.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_(computer_progra...

Also interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_passing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent-based_model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What is meant by “protection” in real OOP? by tresilience on Friday April 24, 2020 @12:46PM (#22970124)

Thanks. I've read all links and I think I would like to see more hands-on code regarding to how this is done in the systems (like Smalltalk) itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What is meant by “protection” in real OOP? by 7373737373 on Friday April 24, 2020 @04:47PM (#22972746)

There are two types of languages which use encapsulation: those who use it merely as the main syntactic model (C++, Smalltalk, Java, Python) and those who actually enforce it by managing memory access during runtime (E, Erlang).

The following might be intuitive https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erights/uploaded-papers/ma...

[ Parent | on HN ]