Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part II)
by tedunangst on Thursday August 30, 2012 @02:03PM
(#4455887)
The question doesn't make much sense. Your C example totally breaks encapsulation.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part II)
by rumcajz on Thursday August 30, 2012 @02:22PM
(#4455994)
Well, what kind of problem is that in C? It's C. It has no public/private keywords. Nobody expect struct in C to be well-encapsulated.
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part II)
by scott_s on Thursday August 30, 2012 @03:31PM
(#4456308)
It's also not a problem in C++ if you don't care. Just because C++ gives you the means to enforce encapsulation doesn't mean you have to. And, as I said below, when your goal is performance and you need to break abstractions, it makes sense not to enforce encapsulation.