Is ST really O-O?

[Stuart D. Gathman]

In article <slrn9urtko.dih.tim at vegeta.ath.cx>, "Tim Hammerquist"
<tim at vegeta.ath.cx> wrote:

> A major problem "pure" or "true" OO advocates have with Python et al. is
> data hiding.  Encapsulation (at least in the Python-intended sense) is
> implemented, but with enough hacking, a coder _could_ access an object's
> private data at runtime.  This is a serious offense to many OO radicals,
> esp. Smalltalkers.  

That is a silly objection.  Smalltalk implements data hiding, but with
enough hacking, a coder _could_ access an objects private data at runtime
(via (ab)use of introspection, dynamic class modification, generic
persistance mechanisms, etc. etc.).

So I guess ST isn't O-O either by that criterion.  In general, if a language
provides for generic persistence or debuggers written in that
language, then those features can be abused to violate encapsulation.
This is why introspection and persistence are considered security
sensitive in the Java system.

-- 
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - Mozart background
song for the Microsoft "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.