Access specifiers comes under which oops concept?

Question

1.00/5 (1 vote)

See more:

I got confused whether they comes under abstraction or encapsulation.In some articles they mentioned it comes under encapsulation but in some other under abstraction.

Posted 10-May-15 19:22pm

chandra sekhar

Updated 10-May-15 19:25pm

v2

Add a Solution

3 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov · Answer 1 · 2015-05-10T21:26:00

This is a question about nothing. The "question" about "what comes under what concept" have nothing to do with computer science. This is pure pseudoscience, or rather, as I called it blah-blahology. There is no such things. Keywords and elements of syntax and semantic don't "come", there are just there and are used in technology; they should not be directly associated with particular concepts. Such approach is anti-scientific, or, more exactly, it indicates simulation of the language of science. And this is a very crude simulation.

Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience[^],
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation_of_sounds_in_shamanism[^].

Such "questions" should simply not be answered, and imitation of understanding with through using "right words" should not be taught. And students taught this way should use critical thinking and not allow brain-washing them. On this topic, please see my last 1st of April article: Some Programming Approaches to "Neuro-Linguistic Programming"[^].

—SA

CPallini · Answer 2 · 2015-05-10T21:26:00

Solution 3

Access specifiers come, of course, as encapusation mechanism. Abstraction is a more general concept, supported by the OOP as a whole.

Posted 10-May-15 21:26pm

CPallini

King Fisher · Answer 3 · 2015-05-10T19:38:00

Solution 1

It comes under the both concepts Encapsulation and Abstraction

Encapsulation is to hide the member or variable to outside class, so we use access specifiers to hide.
for eg: private

Abstraction is to show and share some common information to the user. so we use acess specifiers to show

for eg: Public

Posted 10-May-15 19:38pm

King Fisher

Comments

chandra sekhar 11-May-15 1:41am

So all these public,private,protected,protected internal comes under different concepts?

King Fisher 11-May-15 1:57am

i didn't mean that, access specifier comes under these two concepts.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 11-May-15 3:27am

This is very sad that you caught the bait and took this pseudo-question seriously.
Please see my answer where I explain what I mean...
—SA

chandra sekhar 11-May-15 13:50pm

I was asked this question in an interview and I said they comes under abstraction, so he started arguing that's why I asked here.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 11-May-15 14:17pm

How cares what some idiotic interviewers could tell you? And it's possible that they were not idiots, but you just did not understand them, exactly the same way you did not understand my answer. They could argue with you because you first were talking in the same way you talk in your question.

Your problem is talking instead of thinking, lack of thinking. Sorry. You would never get anything good trying to change "incorrect" words with "correct", or anything like that. The whole idea of talking in terms "this or that" is wrong. Those primitive word construct cannot replace understanding the topic, which you quite apparently lack. Talking is useless unless you understand how things work.

—SA