Is public by default an unsafe default?

[NotYouAgain]

On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 19:49:40 UTC, Sergey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2024 at 23:38:05 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:
>> C++, C#, and Rust are private by default, and I thoroughly 
>> enjoy using them.
>
> Did this help them to be protected from atackers?
> Do you have this kind of information?

a private attribute provides a mechanism for a type to be 
type-safe. Static assumptions can then be made and enforced by 
the compiler.

private is clearly a good thing in that context. I don't think 
one can argue it is a bad thing, in that context.

private by default is a good thing also. Your already developing 
your type in a type-safe manner from the get-go. Again, I don't 
think one can argue that is a bad thing, in this context.

unless of course, type-safety is not your thing ...it certainly 
is not in C (a language that D so strongly aligns itself to).

But in large, industrial-strength applications being worked on by 
multiple teams, I guarantee that enforcment of a type-safe 
language becomes a strategic decision (i.e. it's not decided on 
whether programmers like type safe programming, or not).

So yes, private and private-by-default are matters related to 
type-safety, and type-safety are matters to safe use of software.

So is public by default an unsafe default? Well in the context of 
the above, of course it is.