[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Opacity considered harmful

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 76 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 76 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Per Bothner wrote:

> Security is not the motivation for opacity.  Maintainability is the
> main motivation: If I don't expose the internals of my data structures
> to client programs, then I have a better chance of modifying those
> internals in a future version of my library without breaking those
> clients.

If you provide adequate (documented, supported) interfaces to your code,
and somebody writes something that twiddles its bits directly instead,
then unless s/he is solving a problem that cannot otherwise be solved,
s/he is *WRONG* and coding against standards and should not keep the
job.  This is not a language issue.  This is a coding practices issue.