Andrew Stuart of Supercoders in Australia made the bold statement that is the title of this response. While I understand the point he is trying to make he has selected an example that demonstrates that he does not get “it”.He insists, in his article, that potential employees know the [parochial] definition of private, protected, public, abstract class and interface.There was a time when I knew the definitions word for word. The GOF were also a part of my indelible memory… but as time progressed and as open source took a foothold idioms like protected and private meant less and less.Back in the day when library vendors were distributing binary-only files private and protected meant something. It meant that the vendor could hide the implementation details. This was usually necessary when there was some intellectual property in play. It’s simply not the case any more.Going back to Andrew’s comments. I don’t know many a-list developers, programmers, architects - that rely on wrote memory. Good luck to you Andrew.