From: Peter Duniho on
JAM wrote:
> [...]
> Regarding your file tree structure example I'm one of those amatour
> programmers raised in times when 5 kB of memory was considered to be
> quite a lot.

That was some thirty years ago. It's time to move on. I did, so I know
you can too. :)

> Therefore I cringe when I see data structures that carry
> unused fileds. I tend to automatically think about stripping such
> fields from the data structure. I treat this as a challenge to have
> some fun. I don't program computers for living so I can afford this.

Afford what? Afford insisting that in spite of not being a professional
programmer, you know better than the professionals how a language should
be designed and used?

I mean no offense, but in this discussion you have repeatedly insisted
that your own point of view is the correct one, in spite of there being
a lot of evidence to the contrary, and refusing to accept that the
professionals might in fact have something useful to offer to you in the
way of insight into good programming practices.

In any case, a) if you really don't want empty fields in your data
structures, that's fine´┐Żyou still don't need to access protected members
from outside the class where they exist, and b) as a person using .NET
you really need to get over the mentality of conserving data at all
costs, because the whole point of the managed programming environment is
to trade efficiency for productivity.