CUrrently in the process of finally learning C#. But after using C++ and python this is one thing that keeps striking me while writing C#.
C# doesn't have a similar thing to typedef in C++. (Or at least htat's true according to various posts here an other googling results.
Now the first use to "type alias" I can understand (though from experience disagree with - but that's something I can learn to accept).
However there is a different use I've gotten used to a lot, especially after using python for years:
The "Generic" pattern. Where I actually don't care about the type (and say I only care that it can be compared to each other). Now of course a generic class can "do" this, but quite often that is overkill: especially since classes typically have many of those, and they are of little importance to people who USE the class.
An example, say I have a dictionary, which binds "values" to certain "identifiers":
System.Collections.Generics.Dictionary<string, double>
Would be a logical start. However say in the future, when having a clearer picture of the whole application, I wish to change it up. I notice that for calculations I would actually need decimal values instead of floating point - (or maybe even bignums instead of floating points). I'd have to go over my whole code changing this.
Similar to the identifier: strings are "easy" but maybe in the future I don't really want to use such bloated structures. Rather I use something that "can be converted from strings and is unique enough" in my class
Or, hey, in a different future I might wish to not use the generic dictionary: rather I implement a custom one for this class specific.
All these things would require me to change code at many different places. Potential bug-heavy, and thus a maintainer would choose not to change it due to maintenance problems.
In other languages I learned this was solved either by "don't caring" (python) - or by allowing a typedef. And always using that typedef, also in other classes.
What is the idiomatic way to do this in C#? Is it generally accepted to use long "lists" of generic variables in your class definition?
MyClass<A_KeyType, A_ValueType, B_KeyType, B_ValueType, ContainerType>
Seems awkward since not the user, but the maintainer of the class might often know better which to use?
As a very simplistic (silly) example
public class MyClass {
public MyClass() { }
private Systems.Collections.Generics.Dictionary<string, double> Points = new Systems.Collections.Generics.Dictionary<string, double>()
Public void AddPerson(string studentID, double val) {
Points.Add(studentID, val)
}
}
getters, maybe changers etc would all have to explicitly refer to Systems.Collections.Generics.Dictionary<string, double>, even though maybe in the future a studentID would be a simple numeric value or something else. Also the code "using" this, which "gets" the student ID needs to understand it is a string.
In C++ I would parametrize the student type "under" the my class as:
public class MyClass {
typedef string StudentIDType
...
Then I would use that explicit type MyClass.StudentIDType in all situations.
C# doesn't have a similar thing to typedef in C++.
Typedef in C defines a new type. C# has type aliases:
using Frob = System.Collections.Dictionary<System.String, System.String>;
...
Frob f = new Frob();
But these are per file. The named alias is not a member of any namespace or type.
And C# of course allows you to define new types by wrapping old ones:
struct MyOpaqueIdentifier
{
private int id;
public MyOpaqueIdentifier(int id) { this.id = id; }
... now define equality, conversions, etc ...
}
However say in the future, when having a clearer picture of the whole application, I wish to change it up
This is the premature generality error, also known as YAGNI: You Ain't Gonna Need It. There are infinite ways to design programs to be more general, most of which you will never need. The right way to do it is to think hard about what kinds of generalities you're going to need up front, and design them in from the beginning.
Also, remember that Visual Studio has powerful refactoring tools.
What is the idiomatic way to do this in C#? Is it generally accepted to use long "lists" of generic variables in your class definition?
C# lets you express generality in several ways:
base classes -- I can accept anything derived from this class.
interfaces -- I can accept anything that implements this interface.
generics -- the type is parameterized by n other types
generic covariance and contravariance -- a sequence of turtles may be used where a sequence of animals is expected
generic constraints -- a type argument is constrained to a base type, interface, etc.
delegates -- needed functionality that consists of a single method (example: compare two Ts for equality) can be passed in as a delegate to that function, rather than requiring an interface, base type, etc.
It sounds to me like you are considering abusing generics; one of the other approaches is typically used.
Try something like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var obj = new Class1<int, string>();
obj.Dictionary.Add(1, "hello");
}
}
class Class1<Tkey, Tvalue>
{
public Dictionary<Tkey, Tvalue> Dictionary { get; set; }
}
If you want Python way, then use Dictionary<string, object>
You will sacrifice performance and may run into a lot of runtime issues at the cost of minimizing code changes.
I really don't see any value in this. The maintainer still has to go to all the places where you have used float and replace all variable and inputs. You are kinda missing the point of using a strongly typed compiled language.
Your best bet is to create a generic class that wraps your functionality
class MyClass<T>
{
Dictionary<string, T> innerDict;
}
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of generics in C#. They are not meant to allow for easy refactoring the way your C++ with typedef seems prepared for future maintainers to switch the type out. Such a usage seems wrong and, while I don't code in C++, I assume this is less used as a "generic" and more of an "anonymous class" definition. That is to say, you are actually defining a pseudoclass of type StudentIDType whose only property is a string value that you can access directly via the "alias". There are such a thing as anonymous classes in C# (see closures) but they are defined as the input for some function. Rather, the C# method of handling the above situation is to properly reify the pseudoclass to be an explicitly declared class. Such an implementation would look like this:
public class MyClass {
// DO NOT EVER DO THIS
// classes should not contain public classes this is merely the smallest possible example
public class StudentPoints {
public string StudentId { get; set; }
public double PointsValue { get; set; }
}
private IEnumerable<StudentPoints> StudentPointsList = new List<StudentPoints>();
public void AddPerson(StudentPoints studentPoints) {
this.StudentPointsList.Add(studentPoints);
}
}
However, there is an obvious problem with the above which should illustrate to you why the anonymous class is a bad idea. The first is that you've abandoned Dictionary for a simpler List/IEnumerable. This means you can't access values by key without "searching the list" (that is you no longer have a hash table implementation). The second is that you are still bound to change types when refactoring. Unless you can implicitly convert from one to another of the types you switch out then you will still have to change the constructors you use in your code to create StudentPoints. It is unavoidably true that changing the type of something will require code changes for most if not all references to that object. This is exactly what the refactoring tools in Visual Studio are built to help with. However, there is a pattern that you can use that is C# and would allow you to at least "reduce" the pain of the transition so that you don't have to find every instance in the code base before it will compile again. That pattern looks like this and utilizes overloads + the [Obsolete] parameter to indicate you are moving away from the old type and moving to the new:
public class MyClass {
private Dictionary<int, double> StudentPoints = new Dictionary<int, double>(); //was string, double
[Obsolete] // unfixed code will call this
public void AddPerson(string studentId, double val) {
int studentIdInt;
if (Int32.TryParse(studentId, out studentIdInt) {
this.AddPerson(studentIdInt, val);
return;
}
throw new ArgumentException(nameof(studentId), "string not convertable to int");
}
public void AddPerson(int studentId, double val) {
this.StudentList.Add(studentId, val);
}
}
Now the compiler will warn you instead of erroring when you pass a string instead. Issues here are that you may now get a runtime error for any string that isn't convertable to an int, something that would be a compile time error otherwise. Additionally this pattern (overload+obsolete attribute) could be used even with the first "reified" class as a constructor but my point is that you don't need to reify the class (in fact its unhelpful). Instead you should understand that yes, generics should declare their types as specifically as possible and yes, there are refactoring patterns that exist so that you can compile your code relatively quickly after changing the type for a generic but it comes with the trade of turning compile time errors into runtime errors. Hope that helps.
What's the advantage of using getters and setters - that only get and set - instead of simply using public fields for those variables?
If getters and setters are ever doing more than just the simple get/set, I can figure this one out very quickly, but I'm not 100% clear on how:
public String foo;
is any worse than:
private String foo;
public void setFoo(String foo) { this.foo = foo; }
public String getFoo() { return foo; }
Whereas the former takes a lot less boilerplate code.
There are actually many good reasons to consider using accessors rather than directly exposing fields of a class - beyond just the argument of encapsulation and making future changes easier.
Here are the some of the reasons I am aware of:
Encapsulation of behavior associated with getting or setting the property - this allows additional functionality (like validation) to be added more easily later.
Hiding the internal representation of the property while exposing a property using an alternative representation.
Insulating your public interface from change - allowing the public interface to remain constant while the implementation changes without affecting existing consumers.
Controlling the lifetime and memory management (disposal) semantics of the property - particularly important in non-managed memory environments (like C++ or Objective-C).
Providing a debugging interception point for when a property changes at runtime - debugging when and where a property changed to a particular value can be quite difficult without this in some languages.
Improved interoperability with libraries that are designed to operate against property getter/setters - Mocking, Serialization, and WPF come to mind.
Allowing inheritors to change the semantics of how the property behaves and is exposed by overriding the getter/setter methods.
Allowing the getter/setter to be passed around as lambda expressions rather than values.
Getters and setters can allow different access levels - for example the get may be public, but the set could be protected.
Because 2 weeks (months, years) from now when you realize that your setter needs to do more than just set the value, you'll also realize that the property has been used directly in 238 other classes :-)
A public field is not worse than a getter/setter pair that does nothing except returning the field and assigning to it. First, it's clear that (in most languages) there is no functional difference. Any difference must be in other factors, like maintainability or readability.
An oft-mentioned advantage of getter/setter pairs, isn't. There's this claim that you can change the implementation and your clients don't have to be recompiled. Supposedly, setters let you add functionality like validation later on and your clients don't even need to know about it. However, adding validation to a setter is a change to its preconditions, a violation of the previous contract, which was, quite simply, "you can put anything in here, and you can get that same thing later from the getter".
So, now that you broke the contract, changing every file in the codebase is something you should want to do, not avoid. If you avoid it you're making the assumption that all the code assumed the contract for those methods was different.
If that should not have been the contract, then the interface was allowing clients to put the object in invalid states. That's the exact opposite of encapsulation If that field could not really be set to anything from the start, why wasn't the validation there from the start?
This same argument applies to other supposed advantages of these pass-through getter/setter pairs: if you later decide to change the value being set, you're breaking the contract. If you override the default functionality in a derived class, in a way beyond a few harmless modifications (like logging or other non-observable behaviour), you're breaking the contract of the base class. That is a violation of the Liskov Substitutability Principle, which is seen as one of the tenets of OO.
If a class has these dumb getters and setters for every field, then it is a class that has no invariants whatsoever, no contract. Is that really object-oriented design? If all the class has is those getters and setters, it's just a dumb data holder, and dumb data holders should look like dumb data holders:
class Foo {
public:
int DaysLeft;
int ContestantNumber;
};
Adding pass-through getter/setter pairs to such a class adds no value. Other classes should provide meaningful operations, not just operations that fields already provide. That's how you can define and maintain useful invariants.
Client: "What can I do with an object of this class?"
Designer: "You can read and write several variables."
Client: "Oh... cool, I guess?"
There are reasons to use getters and setters, but if those reasons don't exist, making getter/setter pairs in the name of false encapsulation gods is not a good thing. Valid reasons to make getters or setters include the things often mentioned as the potential changes you can make later, like validation or different internal representations. Or maybe the value should be readable by clients but not writable (for example, reading the size of a dictionary), so a simple getter is a nice choice. But those reasons should be there when you make the choice, and not just as a potential thing you may want later. This is an instance of YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It).
Lots of people talk about the advantages of getters and setters but I want to play devil's advocate. Right now I'm debugging a very large program where the programmers decided to make everything getters and setters. That might seem nice, but its a reverse-engineering nightmare.
Say you're looking through hundreds of lines of code and you come across this:
person.name = "Joe";
It's a beautifully simply piece of code until you realize its a setter. Now, you follow that setter and find that it also sets person.firstName, person.lastName, person.isHuman, person.hasReallyCommonFirstName, and calls person.update(), which sends a query out to the database, etc. Oh, that's where your memory leak was occurring.
Understanding a local piece of code at first glance is an important property of good readability that getters and setters tend to break. That is why I try to avoid them when I can, and minimize what they do when I use them.
In a pure object-oriented world getters and setters is a terrible anti-pattern. Read this article: Getters/Setters. Evil. Period. In a nutshell, they encourage programmers to think about objects as of data structures, and this type of thinking is pure procedural (like in COBOL or C). In an object-oriented language there are no data structures, but only objects that expose behavior (not attributes/properties!)
You may find more about them in Section 3.5 of Elegant Objects (my book about object-oriented programming).
There are many reasons. My favorite one is when you need to change the behavior or regulate what you can set on a variable. For instance, lets say you had a setSpeed(int speed) method. But you want that you can only set a maximum speed of 100. You would do something like:
public void setSpeed(int speed) {
if ( speed > 100 ) {
this.speed = 100;
} else {
this.speed = speed;
}
}
Now what if EVERYWHERE in your code you were using the public field and then you realized you need the above requirement? Have fun hunting down every usage of the public field instead of just modifying your setter.
My 2 cents :)
One advantage of accessors and mutators is that you can perform validation.
For example, if foo was public, I could easily set it to null and then someone else could try to call a method on the object. But it's not there anymore! With a setFoo method, I could ensure that foo was never set to null.
Accessors and mutators also allow for encapsulation - if you aren't supposed to see the value once its set (perhaps it's set in the constructor and then used by methods, but never supposed to be changed), it will never been seen by anyone. But if you can allow other classes to see or change it, you can provide the proper accessor and/or mutator.
Thanks, that really clarified my thinking. Now here is (almost) 10 (almost) good reasons NOT to use getters and setters:
When you realize you need to do more than just set and get the value, you can just make the field private, which will instantly tell you where you've directly accessed it.
Any validation you perform in there can only be context free, which validation rarely is in practice.
You can change the value being set - this is an absolute nightmare when the caller passes you a value that they [shock horror] want you to store AS IS.
You can hide the internal representation - fantastic, so you're making sure that all these operations are symmetrical right?
You've insulated your public interface from changes under the sheets - if you were designing an interface and weren't sure whether direct access to something was OK, then you should have kept designing.
Some libraries expect this, but not many - reflection, serialization, mock objects all work just fine with public fields.
Inheriting this class, you can override default functionality - in other words you can REALLY confuse callers by not only hiding the implementation but making it inconsistent.
The last three I'm just leaving (N/A or D/C)...
Depends on your language. You've tagged this "object-oriented" rather than "Java", so I'd like to point out that ChssPly76's answer is language-dependent. In Python, for instance, there is no reason to use getters and setters. If you need to change the behavior, you can use a property, which wraps a getter and setter around basic attribute access. Something like this:
class Simple(object):
def _get_value(self):
return self._value -1
def _set_value(self, new_value):
self._value = new_value + 1
def _del_value(self):
self.old_values.append(self._value)
del self._value
value = property(_get_value, _set_value, _del_value)
Well i just want to add that even if sometimes they are necessary for the encapsulation and security of your variables/objects, if we want to code a real Object Oriented Program, then we need to STOP OVERUSING THE ACCESSORS, cause sometimes we depend a lot on them when is not really necessary and that makes almost the same as if we put the variables public.
EDIT: I answered this question because there are a bunch of people learning programming asking this, and most of the answers are very technically competent, but they're not as easy to understand if you're a newbie. We were all newbies, so I thought I'd try my hand at a more newbie friendly answer.
The two main ones are polymorphism, and validation. Even if it's just a stupid data structure.
Let's say we have this simple class:
public class Bottle {
public int amountOfWaterMl;
public int capacityMl;
}
A very simple class that holds how much liquid is in it, and what its capacity is (in milliliters).
What happens when I do:
Bottle bot = new Bottle();
bot.amountOfWaterMl = 1500;
bot.capacityMl = 1000;
Well, you wouldn't expect that to work, right?
You want there to be some kind of sanity check. And worse, what if I never specified the maximum capacity? Oh dear, we have a problem.
But there's another problem too. What if bottles were just one type of container? What if we had several containers, all with capacities and amounts of liquid filled? If we could just make an interface, we could let the rest of our program accept that interface, and bottles, jerrycans and all sorts of stuff would just work interchangably. Wouldn't that be better? Since interfaces demand methods, this is also a good thing.
We'd end up with something like:
public interface LiquidContainer {
public int getAmountMl();
public void setAmountMl(int amountMl);
public int getCapacityMl();
}
Great! And now we just change Bottle to this:
public class Bottle implements LiquidContainer {
private int capacityMl;
private int amountFilledMl;
public Bottle(int capacityMl, int amountFilledMl) {
this.capacityMl = capacityMl;
this.amountFilledMl = amountFilledMl;
checkNotOverFlow();
}
public int getAmountMl() {
return amountFilledMl;
}
public void setAmountMl(int amountMl) {
this.amountFilled = amountMl;
checkNotOverFlow();
}
public int getCapacityMl() {
return capacityMl;
}
private void checkNotOverFlow() {
if(amountOfWaterMl > capacityMl) {
throw new BottleOverflowException();
}
}
I'll leave the definition of the BottleOverflowException as an exercise to the reader.
Now notice how much more robust this is. We can deal with any type of container in our code now by accepting LiquidContainer instead of Bottle. And how these bottles deal with this sort of stuff can all differ. You can have bottles that write their state to disk when it changes, or bottles that save on SQL databases or GNU knows what else.
And all these can have different ways to handle various whoopsies. The Bottle just checks and if it's overflowing it throws a RuntimeException. But that might be the wrong thing to do.
(There is a useful discussion to be had about error handling, but I'm keeping it very simple here on purpose. People in comments will likely point out the flaws of this simplistic approach. ;) )
And yes, it seems like we go from a very simple idea to getting much better answers quickly.
Please note also that you can't change the capacity of a bottle. It's now set in stone. You could do this with an int by declaring it final. But if this was a list, you could empty it, add new things to it, and so on. You can't limit the access to touching the innards.
There's also the third thing that not everyone has addressed: getters and setters use method calls. That means that they look like normal methods everywhere else does. Instead of having weird specific syntax for DTOs and stuff, you have the same thing everywhere.
I know it's a bit late, but I think there are some people who are interested in performance.
I've done a little performance test. I wrote a class "NumberHolder" which, well, holds an Integer. You can either read that Integer by using the getter method
anInstance.getNumber() or by directly accessing the number by using anInstance.number. My programm reads the number 1,000,000,000 times, via both ways. That process is repeated five times and the time is printed. I've got the following result:
Time 1: 953ms, Time 2: 741ms
Time 1: 655ms, Time 2: 743ms
Time 1: 656ms, Time 2: 634ms
Time 1: 637ms, Time 2: 629ms
Time 1: 633ms, Time 2: 625ms
(Time 1 is the direct way, Time 2 is the getter)
You see, the getter is (almost) always a bit faster. Then I tried with different numbers of cycles. Instead of 1 million, I used 10 million and 0.1 million.
The results:
10 million cycles:
Time 1: 6382ms, Time 2: 6351ms
Time 1: 6363ms, Time 2: 6351ms
Time 1: 6350ms, Time 2: 6363ms
Time 1: 6353ms, Time 2: 6357ms
Time 1: 6348ms, Time 2: 6354ms
With 10 million cycles, the times are almost the same.
Here are 100 thousand (0.1 million) cycles:
Time 1: 77ms, Time 2: 73ms
Time 1: 94ms, Time 2: 65ms
Time 1: 67ms, Time 2: 63ms
Time 1: 65ms, Time 2: 65ms
Time 1: 66ms, Time 2: 63ms
Also with different amounts of cycles, the getter is a little bit faster than the regular way. I hope this helped you.
Don't use getters setters unless needed for your current delivery I.e. Don't think too much about what would happen in the future, if any thing to be changed its a change request in most of the production applications, systems.
Think simple, easy, add complexity when needed.
I would not take advantage of ignorance of business owners of deep technical know how just because I think it's correct or I like the approach.
I have massive system written without getters setters only with access modifiers and some methods to validate n perform biz logic. If you absolutely needed the. Use anything.
We use getters and setters:
for reusability
to perform validation in later stages of programming
Getter and setter methods are public interfaces to access private class members.
Encapsulation mantra
The encapsulation mantra is to make fields private and methods public.
Getter Methods: We can get access to private variables.
Setter Methods: We can modify private fields.
Even though the getter and setter methods do not add new functionality, we can change our mind come back later to make that method
better;
safer; and
faster.
Anywhere a value can be used, a method that returns that value can be added. Instead of:
int x = 1000 - 500
use
int x = 1000 - class_name.getValue();
In layman's terms
Suppose we need to store the details of this Person. This Person has the fields name, age and sex. Doing this involves creating methods for name, age and sex. Now if we need create another person, it becomes necessary to create the methods for name, age, sex all over again.
Instead of doing this, we can create a bean class(Person) with getter and setter methods. So tomorrow we can just create objects of this Bean class(Person class) whenever we need to add a new person (see the figure). Thus we are reusing the fields and methods of bean class, which is much better.
I spent quite a while thinking this over for the Java case, and I believe the real reasons are:
Code to the interface, not the implementation
Interfaces only specify methods, not fields
In other words, the only way you can specify a field in an interface is by providing a method for writing a new value and a method for reading the current value.
Those methods are the infamous getter and setter....
It can be useful for lazy-loading. Say the object in question is stored in a database, and you don't want to go get it unless you need it. If the object is retrieved by a getter, then the internal object can be null until somebody asks for it, then you can go get it on the first call to the getter.
I had a base page class in a project that was handed to me that was loading some data from a couple different web service calls, but the data in those web service calls wasn't always used in all child pages. Web services, for all of the benefits, pioneer new definitions of "slow", so you don't want to make a web service call if you don't have to.
I moved from public fields to getters, and now the getters check the cache, and if it's not there call the web service. So with a little wrapping, a lot of web service calls were prevented.
So the getter saves me from trying to figure out, on each child page, what I will need. If I need it, I call the getter, and it goes to find it for me if I don't already have it.
protected YourType _yourName = null;
public YourType YourName{
get
{
if (_yourName == null)
{
_yourName = new YourType();
return _yourName;
}
}
}
One aspect I missed in the answers so far, the access specification:
for members you have only one access specification for both setting and getting
for setters and getters you can fine tune it and define it separately
In languages which don't support "properties" (C++, Java) or require recompilation of clients when changing fields to properties (C#), using get/set methods is easier to modify. For example, adding validation logic to a setFoo method will not require changing the public interface of a class.
In languages which support "real" properties (Python, Ruby, maybe Smalltalk?) there is no point to get/set methods.
One of the basic principals of OO design: Encapsulation!
It gives you many benefits, one of which being that you can change the implementation of the getter/setter behind the scenes but any consumer of that value will continue to work as long as the data type remains the same.
You should use getters and setters when:
You're dealing with something that is conceptually an attribute, but:
Your language doesn't have properties (or some similar mechanism, like Tcl's variable traces), or
Your language's property support isn't sufficient for this use case, or
Your language's (or sometimes your framework's) idiomatic conventions encourage getters or setters for this use case.
So this is very rarely a general OO question; it's a language-specific question, with different answers for different languages (and different use cases).
From an OO theory point of view, getters and setters are useless. The interface of your class is what it does, not what its state is. (If not, you've written the wrong class.) In very simple cases, where what a class does is just, e.g., represent a point in rectangular coordinates,* the attributes are part of the interface; getters and setters just cloud that. But in anything but very simple cases, neither the attributes nor getters and setters are part of the interface.
Put another way: If you believe that consumers of your class shouldn't even know that you have a spam attribute, much less be able to change it willy-nilly, then giving them a set_spam method is the last thing you want to do.
* Even for that simple class, you may not necessarily want to allow setting the x and y values. If this is really a class, shouldn't it have methods like translate, rotate, etc.? If it's only a class because your language doesn't have records/structs/named tuples, then this isn't really a question of OO…
But nobody is ever doing general OO design. They're doing design, and implementation, in a specific language. And in some languages, getters and setters are far from useless.
If your language doesn't have properties, then the only way to represent something that's conceptually an attribute, but is actually computed, or validated, etc., is through getters and setters.
Even if your language does have properties, there may be cases where they're insufficient or inappropriate. For example, if you want to allow subclasses to control the semantics of an attribute, in languages without dynamic access, a subclass can't substitute a computed property for an attribute.
As for the "what if I want to change my implementation later?" question (which is repeated multiple times in different wording in both the OP's question and the accepted answer): If it really is a pure implementation change, and you started with an attribute, you can change it to a property without affecting the interface. Unless, of course, your language doesn't support that. So this is really just the same case again.
Also, it's important to follow the idioms of the language (or framework) you're using. If you write beautiful Ruby-style code in C#, any experienced C# developer other than you is going to have trouble reading it, and that's bad. Some languages have stronger cultures around their conventions than others.—and it may not be a coincidence that Java and Python, which are on opposite ends of the spectrum for how idiomatic getters are, happen to have two of the strongest cultures.
Beyond human readers, there will be libraries and tools that expect you to follow the conventions, and make your life harder if you don't. Hooking Interface Builder widgets to anything but ObjC properties, or using certain Java mocking libraries without getters, is just making your life more difficult. If the tools are important to you, don't fight them.
From a object orientation design standpoint both alternatives can be damaging to the maintenance of the code by weakening the encapsulation of the classes. For a discussion you can look into this excellent article: http://typicalprogrammer.com/?p=23
Code evolves. private is great for when you need data member protection. Eventually all classes should be sort of "miniprograms" that have a well-defined interface that you can't just screw with the internals of.
That said, software development isn't about setting down that final version of the class as if you're pressing some cast iron statue on the first try. While you're working with it, code is more like clay. It evolves as you develop it and learn more about the problem domain you are solving. During development classes may interact with each other than they should (dependency you plan to factor out), merge together, or split apart. So I think the debate boils down to people not wanting to religiously write
int getVar() const { return var ; }
So you have:
doSomething( obj->getVar() ) ;
Instead of
doSomething( obj->var ) ;
Not only is getVar() visually noisy, it gives this illusion that gettingVar() is somehow a more complex process than it really is. How you (as the class writer) regard the sanctity of var is particularly confusing to a user of your class if it has a passthru setter -- then it looks like you're putting up these gates to "protect" something you insist is valuable, (the sanctity of var) but yet even you concede var's protection isn't worth much by the ability for anyone to just come in and set var to whatever value they want, without you even peeking at what they are doing.
So I program as follows (assuming an "agile" type approach -- ie when I write code not knowing exactly what it will be doing/don't have time or experience to plan an elaborate waterfall style interface set):
1) Start with all public members for basic objects with data and behavior. This is why in all my C++ "example" code you'll notice me using struct instead of class everywhere.
2) When an object's internal behavior for a data member becomes complex enough, (for example, it likes to keep an internal std::list in some kind of order), accessor type functions are written. Because I'm programming by myself, I don't always set the member private right away, but somewhere down the evolution of the class the member will be "promoted" to either protected or private.
3) Classes that are fully fleshed out and have strict rules about their internals (ie they know exactly what they are doing, and you are not to "fuck" (technical term) with its internals) are given the class designation, default private members, and only a select few members are allowed to be public.
I find this approach allows me to avoid sitting there and religiously writing getter/setters when a lot of data members get migrated out, shifted around, etc. during the early stages of a class's evolution.
There is a good reason to consider using accessors is there is no property inheritance. See next example:
public class TestPropertyOverride {
public static class A {
public int i = 0;
public void add() {
i++;
}
public int getI() {
return i;
}
}
public static class B extends A {
public int i = 2;
#Override
public void add() {
i = i + 2;
}
#Override
public int getI() {
return i;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new B();
System.out.println(a.i);
a.add();
System.out.println(a.i);
System.out.println(a.getI());
}
}
Output:
0
0
4
Getters and setters are used to implement two of the fundamental aspects of Object Oriented Programming which are:
Abstraction
Encapsulation
Suppose we have an Employee class:
package com.highmark.productConfig.types;
public class Employee {
private String firstName;
private String middleName;
private String lastName;
public String getFirstName() {
return firstName;
}
public void setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
}
public String getMiddleName() {
return middleName;
}
public void setMiddleName(String middleName) {
this.middleName = middleName;
}
public String getLastName() {
return lastName;
}
public void setLastName(String lastName) {
this.lastName = lastName;
}
public String getFullName(){
return this.getFirstName() + this.getMiddleName() + this.getLastName();
}
}
Here the implementation details of Full Name is hidden from the user and is not accessible directly to the user, unlike a public attribute.
There is a difference between DataStructure and Object.
Datastructure should expose its innards and not behavior.
An Object should not expose its innards but it should expose its behavior, which is also known as the Law of Demeter
Mostly DTOs are considered more of a datastructure and not Object. They should only expose their data and not behavior. Having Setter/Getter in DataStructure will expose behavior instead of data inside it. This further increases the chance of violation of Law of Demeter.
Uncle Bob in his book Clean code explained the Law of Demeter.
There is a well-known heuristic called the Law of Demeter that says a
module should not know about the innards of the objects it
manipulates. As we saw in the last section, objects hide their data
and expose operations. This means that an object should not expose its
internal structure through accessors because to do so is to expose,
rather than to hide, its internal structure.
More precisely, the Law of Demeter says that a method f of a class C
should only call the methods of these:
C
An object created by f
An object passed as an argument to f
An object held in an instance variable of C
The method should not invoke methods on objects that are returned by any of the allowed functions.
In other words, talk to friends, not to strangers.
So according this, example of LoD violation is:
final String outputDir = ctxt.getOptions().getScratchDir().getAbsolutePath();
Here, the function should call the method of its immediate friend which is ctxt here, It should not call the method of its immediate friend's friend. but this rule doesn't apply to data structure. so here if ctxt, option, scratchDir are datastructure then why to wrap their internal data with some behavior and doing a violation of LoD.
Instead, we can do something like this.
final String outputDir = ctxt.options.scratchDir.absolutePath;
This fulfills our needs and doesn't even violate LoD.
Inspired by Clean Code by Robert C. Martin(Uncle Bob)
If you don't require any validations and not even need to maintain state i.e. one property depends on another so we need to maintain the state when one is change. You can keep it simple by making field public and not using getter and setters.
I think OOPs complicates things as the program grows it becomes nightmare for developer to scale.
A simple example; we generate c++ headers from xml. The header contains simple field which does not require any validations. But still as in OOPS accessor are fashion we generates them as following.
const Filed& getfield() const
Field& getField()
void setfield(const Field& field){...}
which is very verbose and is not required. a simple
struct
{
Field field;
};
is enough and readable.
Functional programming don't have the concept of data hiding they even don't require it as they do not mutate the data.
Additionally, this is to "future-proof" your class. In particular, changing from a field to a property is an ABI break, so if you do later decide that you need more logic than just "set/get the field", then you need to break ABI, which of course creates problems for anything else already compiled against your class.
One other use (in languages that support properties) is that setters and getters can imply that an operation is non-trivial. Typically, you want to avoid doing anything that's computationally expensive in a property.
One relatively modern advantage of getters/setters is that is makes it easier to browse code in tagged (indexed) code editors. E.g. If you want to see who sets a member, you can open the call hierarchy of the setter.
On the other hand, if the member is public, the tools don't make it possible to filter read/write access to the member. So you have to trudge though all uses of the member.
Getters and setters coming from data hiding. Data Hiding means We
are hiding data from outsiders or outside person/thing cannot access
our data.This is a useful feature in OOP.
As a example:
If you create a public variable, you can access that variable and change value in anywhere(any class). But if you create as private that variable cannot see/access in any class except declared class.
public and private are access modifiers.
So how can we access that variable outside:
This is the place getters and setters coming from. You can declare variable as private then you can implement getter and setter for that variable.
Example(Java):
private String name;
public String getName(){
return this.name;
}
public void setName(String name){
this.name= name;
}
Advantage:
When anyone want to access or change/set value to balance variable, he/she must have permision.
//assume we have person1 object
//to give permission to check balance
person1.getName()
//to give permission to set balance
person1.setName()
You can set value in constructor also but when later on when you want
to update/change value, you have to implement setter method.
I have a situation where I would like to have objects of a certain type be able to be used as two different types. If one of the "base" types was an interface this wouldn't be an issue, but in my case it is preferable that they both be concrete types.
I am considering adding copies of the methods and properties of one of the base types to the derived type, and adding an implicit conversion from the derived type to that base type. Then users will be able treat the derived type as the base type by using the duplicated methods directly, by assigning it to a variable of the base type, or by passing it to a method that takes the base type.
It seems like this solution will fit my needs well, but am I missing anything? Is there a situation where this won't work, or where it is likely to add confusion instead of simplicity when using the API?
EDIT: More details about my specific scenario:
This is for a potential future redesign of the way indicators are written in RightEdge, which is an automated trading system development environment. Price data is represented as a series of bars, which have values for the open, low, high, and close prices for a given period (1 minute, 1 day, etc). Indicators perform calculations on series of data. An example of a simple indicator is the moving average indicator, which gives the moving average of the most recent n values of its input, where n is user-specified. The moving average might be applied to the bar close, or it could be applied to the output of another indicator to smooth it out.
Each time a new bar comes in, the indicators compute the new value for their output for that bar.
Most indicators have only one output series, but sometimes it is convenient to have more than one output (see MACD), and I want to support this.
So, indicators need to derive from a "Component" class which has the methods that are called when new data comes in. However, for indicators which have only one output series (and this is most of them), it would be good for them to act as a series themselves. That way, users can use SMA.Current for the current value of an SMA, instead of having to use SMA.Output.Current. Likewise, Indicator2.Input = Indicator1; is preferable to Indicator2.Input = Indicator1.Output;. This may not seem like much of a difference, but a lot of our target customers are not professional .NET developers so I want to make this as easy as possible.
My idea is to have an implicit conversion from the indicator to its output series for indicators that have only one output series.
You don't provide too many details, so here is an attempt to answering from what you provide.
Take a look at the basic differences:
When you have a base type B and a derived type D, an assignment like this:
B my_B_object = my_D_object;
assigns a reference to the same object. On the other hand, when B and D are independent types with an implicit conversion between them, the above assignment would create a copy of my_D_object and store it (or a reference to it if B is a class) on my_B_object.
In summary, with "real" inheritance works by reference (changes to a reference affect the object shared by many references), while custom type conversions generally work by value (that depends on how you implement it, but implementing something close to "by reference" behavior for converters would be nearly insane): each reference will point to its own object.
You say you don't want to use interfaces, but why? Using the combo interface + helper class + extension methods (C# 3.0 and .Net 3.5 or newer required) can get quite close to real multiple inheritance. Look at this:
interface MyType { ... }
static class MyTypeHelper {
public static void MyMethod(this MyType value) {...}
}
Doing that for each "base" type would allow you to provide default implementations for the methods you want to.
These won't behave as virtual methods out-of-the-box; but you may use reflection to achieve that; you would need to do the following from within the implementation on the Helper class:
retrieve a System.Type with value.GetType()
find if that type has a method matching the signature
if you find a matching method, invoke it and return (so the rest of the Helper's method is not run).
Finally, if you found no specific implementation, let the rest of the method run and work as a "base class implementation".
There you go: multiple inheritance in C#, with the only caveat of requiring some ugly code in the base classes that will support this, and some overhead due to reflection; but unless your application is working under heavy pressure this should do the trick.
So, once again, why you don't want to use interfaces? If the only reason is their inability to provide method implementations, the trick above solves it. If you have any other issue with interfaces, I might try to sort them out, but I'd have to know about them first ;)
Hope this helps.
[EDIT: Addition based on the comments]
I've added a bunch of details to the original question. I don't want to use interfaces because I want to prevent users from shooting themselves in the foot by implementing them incorrectly, or accidentally calling a method (ie NewBar) which they need to override if they want to implement an indicator, but which they should never need to call directly.
I've looked at your updated question, but the comment quite summarizes it. Maybe I'm missing something, but interfaces + extensions + reflection can solve everything multiple inheritance could, and fares far better than implicit conversions at the task:
Virtual method behavior (an implementation is provided, inheritors can override): include method on the helper (wrapped in the reflection "virtualization" described above), don't declare on the interface.
Abstract method behavior (no implementation provided, inheritors must implement): declare method on the interface, don't include it on the helper.
Non-virtual method behavior (an implementation is provided, inheritors may hide but can't override): Just implement it as normal on the helper.
Bonus: weird method (an implementation is provided, but inheritors must implement anyway; they may explicitly invoke the base implementation): that's not doable with normal or multiple inheritance, but I'm including it for completeness: that's what you'd get if you provide an implementation on the helper and also declare it on the interface. I'm not sure of how would that work (on the aspect of virtual vs. non-virtual) or what use it'd have, but hey, my solution has already beaten multiple inheritance :P
Note: On the case of the non-virtual method, you'd need to have the interface type as the "declared" type to ensure that the base implementation is used. That's exactly the same as when an inheritor hides a method.
I want to prevent users from shooting themselves in the foot by implementing them incorrectly
Seems that non-virtual (implemented only on the helper) will work best here.
or accidentally calling a method (ie NewBar) which they need to override if they want to implement an indicator
That's where abstract methods (or interfaces, which are a kind of super-abstract thing) shine most. The inheritor must implement the method, or the code won't even compile. On some cases virtual methods may do (if you have a generic base implementation but more specific implementations are reasonable).
but which they should never need to call directly
If a method (or any other member) is exposed to client code but shouldn't be called from client code, there is no programmatic solution to enforce that (actually, there is, bear with me). The right place to address that is on the documentation. Because you are documenting you API, aren't you? ;) Neither conversions nor multiple inheritance could help you here. However, reflection may help:
if(System.Reflection.Assembly.GetCallingAssembly()!=System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())
throw new Exception("Don't call me. Don't call me!. DON'T CALL ME!!!");
Of course, you may shorten that if you have a using System.Reflection; statement on your file. And, BTW, feel free to change the Exception's type and message to something more descriptive ;).
I see two issues:
User-defined type conversion operators are generally not very discoverable -- they don't show up in IntelliSense.
With an implicit user-defined type conversion operator, it's often not obvious when the operator is applied.
This doesn't been you shouldn't be defining type conversion operators at all, but you have to keep this in mind when designing your solution.
An easily discoverable, easily recognizable solution would be to define explicit conversion methods:
class Person { }
abstract class Student : Person
{
public abstract decimal Wage { get; }
}
abstract class Musician : Person
{
public abstract decimal Wage { get; }
}
class StudentMusician : Person
{
public decimal MusicianWage { get { return 10; } }
public decimal StudentWage { get { return 8; } }
public Musician AsMusician() { return new MusicianFacade(this); }
public Student AsStudent() { return new StudentFacade(this); }
}
Usage:
void PayMusician(Musician musician) { GiveMoney(musician, musician.Wage); }
void PayStudent(Student student) { GiveMoney(student, student.Wage); }
StudentMusician alice;
PayStudent(alice.AsStudent());
It doesn't sound as if your method would support a cross-cast. True multiple inheritance would.
An example from C++, which has multiple inheritance:
class A {};
class B {};
class C : public A, public B {};
C o;
B* pB = &o;
A* pA = dynamic_cast<A*>(pB); // with true MI, this succeeds
Then users will be able treat the derived type as the base type by using the duplicated methods directly, by assigning it to a variable of the base type, or by passing it to a method that takes the base type.
This will behave differently, however. In the case of inheritance, you're just passing your object. However, by implementing an implicit converter, you'll always be constructing a new object when the conversion takes place. This could be very unexpected, since it will behave quite differently in the two cases.
Personally, I'd make this a method that returns the new type, since it would make the actual implementation obvious to the end user.
Maybe I'm going too far off with this, but your use case sounds suspiciously as if it could heavily benefit from building on Rx (Rx in 15 Minutes).
Rx is a framework for working with objects that produce values. It allows such objects to be composed in a very expressive way and to transform, filter and aggregate such streams of produced values.
You say you have a bar:
class Bar
{
double Open { get; }
double Low { get; }
double High { get; }
double Close { get; }
}
A series is an object that produces bars:
class Series : IObservable<Bar>
{
// ...
}
A moving average indicator is an object that produces the average of the last count bars whenever a new bar is produced:
static class IndicatorExtensions
{
public static IObservable<double> MovingAverage(
this IObservable<Bar> source,
int count)
{
// ...
}
}
The usage would be as follows:
Series series = GetSeries();
series.MovingAverage(20).Subscribe(average =>
{
txtCurrentAverage.Text = average.ToString();
});
An indicator with multiple outputs is similar to GroupBy.
This might be a stupid idea, but: if your design requires multiple inheritance, then why don't you simply use a language with MI? There are several .NET languages which support multiple inheritance. Off the top of my head: Eiffel, Python, Ioke. There's probable more.