5 ms·

getters, setters, and factories allow the implementation to evolve without breaking client code.

• bccdee 5y ago
  That only matters for interfaces which you expose to clients. The real problem with getters & setters & such is when they gum up the internal workings of a codebase, abstracting over nothing and complicating things unnecessarily.
  • millstone 5y ago
    I agree with that. If you create accessors as a matter of course, then you are mostly adding dead weight. But accessors can add a useful layer of abstraction at the interface layer, as you say.
• Gibbon1 5y ago
  C# allows you to define getters and setters after the fact without breaking client code. foo.bar = x; // could be normal assignment or a setter.
  • thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
    not quite! a property is a pair of methods. if you replace a member with a property, it does remain code compatible as you describe, but breaks the ABI. so if you do this in a published library, clients require a recompile. for this reason, they recommend: 1) different naming convention between members and props 2) dont expose members; use properties from the start for anything public to assist with two, they introduce the default get/set implementation, like so: public object Derp { get; set; } for when you want to expose an interface with the assignment idiom but dont actually have any interesting implementation