> The problem is that programming languages have always focused on the definition side of types, which is absolutely necessary and good, but the problem is that only limiting use by, e.g., "protected, private, friend, internal, ..." on class members, as well as the complicated ways we can limit inheritance, are barely useful.
Virtually all software ever developed managed just fine to with that alone.
> I don't know of any programming environment that facilitates properly specifying calculating something even that basic in the init phase of running the system, (...)
I don't know what I'm missing, but it sounds like you're describing the constructor of a static object whose class only provides const/getter methods.
> or even a db table's row(s).
I don't think you're describing programming language constructs. This sounds like a framework feature that can be implemented with basic inversion of control.
Virtually all software ever developed managed just fine to with that alone.
> I don't know of any programming environment that facilitates properly specifying calculating something even that basic in the init phase of running the system, (...)
I don't know what I'm missing, but it sounds like you're describing the constructor of a static object whose class only provides const/getter methods.
> or even a db table's row(s).
I don't think you're describing programming language constructs. This sounds like a framework feature that can be implemented with basic inversion of control.