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

I thought it was a security hole and I said that but I didn't target anyone
personally. You could have explained that this is not true. Even then if I
am talking about the same thing in all my mails then that would have been a
problem. If I wanted to keep creating problems that why would I have agreed.


> 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.
>

So, why do people have to react in a negative way? Reacting in a negative
way doesn't make sense. You have the option of counteracting my statement
in detail.



> >
> >> 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.
>


The language itself allows that. So, does this mean that C++ is allowing
the same thing through pointers? I didn't read about this anywhere


> >>
> >> 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.
>


>From this point of view, all languages are safe then.

Then this world should not talk about which language is safe and which
isn't.

Regards,
Amit