pon., 17 lut 2025 o 13:29 Amit <amitchoudhary0523_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
>
>>
>> If you are not a hacker then why do you claim this is even useful for hackers?
>
>
>
> So, you are saying that since I am not a hacker so I should not even discuss hacking even if I see something suspicios?
>
> Doesn't look like the right approach. Stopping questions actually don't help much.
>

There is a difference in making questions and claiming in the first
line of the email:
"C++ language has a big security hole".

As others point out, C++ have lot of holes but this is not one of them.

Claims like this show the very surface level of the problem domain,
this is why people react so.


>
>> Besides, even if I want to have "secure" `private:` how would you like
>> to archive it?
>
>
>
> If I were to design an object oriented language then I would have designed it like Java. At least, I wouldn't have provided any pointers.
>

Are you aware that reflection allows access to private data too?
Same with C#, you are free to modify internal objects.

>>
>> besides, if I'm "hacker" and want to corrupt my own code I can write
>> code like `*(int*)nullptr = 1`
>> or `system("format C:/");`, I do not need to abuse `private` to do this.
>
>
>
> I didn't talk about hacking my own code.
>

But it is, when you compile code its yours, even if someone else
writes this as a library.
You can even edit it as its `txt` file.

> Regards,
> Amit
>