News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Data-oriented design or why you might shoot yourself in the foot with OOP (2009). Parent comment

Re:Data-oriented design or why you might shoot yourself in t... by rsj_hn on Monday June 28, 2021 @09:51PM (#27670748)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Data-oriented design or why you might shoot yourself in t... by bccdee on Monday June 28, 2021 @10:18PM (#27670950)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Data-oriented design or why you might shoot yourself in t... by rsj_hn on Thursday July 01, 2021 @01:42PM (#27701968)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Data-oriented design or why you might shoot yourself in t... by bccdee on Friday July 02, 2021 @06:24PM (#27717676)
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."

[ Parent | on HN ]