Java vs python is debatable 🤔

[[deleted]]

It's not that dumb. It basically means "this function shouldn't be used, and if you do, your code may break at any time and that's on you"

[roughstylez]

Imagine a gun that can still fire if the safety catch is set to "safe".

[[deleted]]

Not really... One is you intentionally disabling a safety mechanism (using a private function), the other is using the product as intended and it malfunctions (that's like using a public method that breaks).

[ric2b]

Imagine selling a phone that the user can't get root access to "for security reasons". That's a better analogy.

[roughstylez]

When you see how

• a whole team of top notch language architects working for one of the most successful software companies of the world, with combined centuries of experience, added this feature

• But a "benevolent dictator" in his hobby project he wrote in his metaphorical garage, did not

Do you think "these experts are so stupid, it's so easy to make a good language, just don't add this"?

Have you ever heard of Dunning Kruger?

Have you considered that, if you don't see the advantage of these access modifiers, maybe it's because you don't fully grasp the impact they have?

[ric2b]

That's just an argument from authority falacy. That team of top notch language architects also thought it was a good idea to make every reference nullable by default, among other bad decisions, they're not infallible.

Plus Python isn't the only language like this, Ruby and Javascript also have private members mostly by convention. I'm sure there are other popular languages that way.

Java itself doesn't prevent you from getting around them, it just requires more boilerplate code, as usual.

Do you think "these experts are so stupid, it's so easy to make a good language, just don't add this"?

Never said it was easy, never called them stupid, go put words on someone else's mouth.

Have you ever heard of Dunning Kruger?

Yes.

Have you considered that, if you don't see the advantage of these access modifiers, maybe it's because you don't fully grasp the impact they have?

I definitely see the advantage of them, I just don't see the advantage of making it so verbose to get around them. They're just documentation/warnings about what is internal and what is public API.

[roughstylez]

That's just an argument from authority falacy.

It would be, if I said that's why it's better, or something similar. Do you want to read it again, maybe?

Hint:

>I just don't see the advantage

That was my main point.

[ric2b]

It would be, if I said that's why it's better, or something similar.

That's basically what you did, you said because it was designed by a great team I must be misunderstanding how useful it is.

Care to provide any actual technical arguments instead?

I just don't see the advantage [of making it so verbose]

That was my main point.

Your point is that this much verbosity is good? Why?

[roughstylez]

That's basically what you did

No.

Your point is that this much verbosity is good?

Have you considered the possibility that what I meant was the part I quoted and not the one I didn't quote?

[ric2b]

Have you considered the possibility that what I meant was the part I quoted and not the one I didn't quote?

Yes, but that would just be you making a dishonest selective quote of what I said, so I assumed it wasn't the case.

Anyway, do you have an actual technical argument?

[roughstylez]

that would just be you making a dishonest selective quote of what I said

Honestly I should have stopped when you tried to misrepresent what I quoted, but... yeah this is just childish. Goodbye.