Algorithms should be free from rich types

[bachmeier]

On Wednesday, 28 June 2023 at 17:12:17 UTC, Hipreme wrote:

> I have had a rant with `private` since the time I used LibGDX 
> Particle System. I wasn't able to extend its particle system to 
> add collision to it, why? Because the particles were `private`. 
> Since that, I never used `private` anymore without a very very 
> good reason to do so, the only place I use it right now is for 
> intermediate processes on a full process. People in industry 
> knows nothing on how to use `protected`. Protected IMO should 
> be the industry standard.
>
> I have worked in a codebase which is being refactored for at 
> least 3 years, there's so many changes on `private` not being 
> used after some time. Why is that? Because programmers should 
> not fear themselves most of the time.

[Rich 
Hickey](https://harfangk.github.io/2017/12/08/rich-hickey-interview-from-codequarterly.html):

> At some point though, someone is going to need to have access 
> to the data. And if you have a notion of “private”, you need 
> corresponding notions of privilege and trust. And that adds a 
> whole ton of complexity and little value, creates rigidity in a 
> system, and often forces things to live in places they 
> shouldn’t.

> If people don’t have the sensibilities to desire to program to 
> abstractions and to be wary of marrying implementation details, 
> then they are never going to be good programmers.