Related
We're often told we should protect encapsulation by making getter and setter methods (properties in C#) for class fields, instead of exposing the fields to the outside world.
But there are many times when a field is just there to hold a value and doesn't require any computation to get or set. For these we would all do this number:
public class Book
{
private string _title;
public string Title
{
get => _title;
set => _title = value;
}
}
Well, I have a confession, I couldn't bear writing all that (really, it wasn't having to write it, it was having to look at it), so I went rogue and used public fields.
Then along comes C# 3.0 and I see they added automatic properties:
public class Book
{
public string Title { get; set; }
}
Which is tidier, and I'm thankful for it, but really, what's so different than just making a public field?
public class Book
{
public string Title;
}
In a related question I had some time ago, there was a link to a posting on Jeff's blog, explaining some differences.
Properties vs. Public Variables
Reflection works differently on variables vs. properties, so if you rely on reflection, it's easier to use all properties.
You can't databind against a variable.
Changing a variable to a property is a breaking change. For example:
TryGetTitle(out book.Title); // requires a variable
Ignoring the API issues, the thing I find most valuable about using a property is debugging.
The CLR debugger does not support data break points (most native debuggers do). Hence it's not possible to set a break point on the read or write of a particular field on a class. This is very limiting in certain debugging scenarios.
Because properties are implemented as very thin methods, it is possible to set breakpoints on the read and write of their values. This gives them a big leg up over fields.
Changing from a field to a property breaks the contract (e.g. requires all referencing code to be recompiled). So when you have an interaction point with other classes - any public (and generally protected) member, you want to plan for future growth. Do so by always using properties.
It's nothing to make it an auto-property today, and 3 months down the line realize you want to make it lazy-loaded, and put a null check in the getter. If you had used a field, this is a recompile change at best and impossible at worst, depending on who & what else relies on your assemblies.
Just because no one mentioned it: You can't define fields on Interfaces. So, if you have to implement a specific interface which defines properties, auto-properties sometimes are a really nice feature.
A huge difference that is often overlooked and is not mentioned in any other answer: overriding. You can declare properties virtual and override them whereas you cannot do the same for public member fields.
It's all about versioning and API stability. There is no difference, in version 1 - but later, if you decide you need to make this a property with some type of error checking in version 2, you don't have to change your API- no code changes, anywhere, other than the definition of the property.
Another advantage of auto-implemented properties over public fields is that you can make set accessors private or protected, providing the class of objects where it was defined better control than that of public fields.
There is nothing wrong in making a field public. But remember creating getter/setter with private fields is no encapsulation. IMO, If you do not care about other features of a Property, you might as well make it public.
Trivial properties like these make me sad. They are the worst kind of cargo culting and the hatred for public fields in C# needs to stop. The biggest argument against public fields is future-proofing: If you later decide you need to add extra logic to the getter and setter, then you will have to do a huge refactor in any other code that uses the field. This is certainly true in other languages like C++ and Java where the semantics for calling a getter and setter method are very different from those for setting and getting a field. However, in C#, the semantics for accessing a property are exactly the same as those for accessing a field, so 99% of your code should be completely unaffected by this.
The one example I have seen of changing a field into a property actually being a breaking change at the source level is something like:
TryGetTitle(out book.Title); // requires a variable
To this I have to ask, why TF are you passing some other class's field as a reference? Depending on that not being a property seems like the real coding failure here. Assuming that you can directly write to data in another class that you know nothing about is bad practice. Make your own local variable and set book.Title from that. Any code that does something like this deserves to break.
Other arguments I have seen against it:
Changing a field to a property breaks binary compatibility and requires any code that uses it to be recompiled: This is a concern iff you are writing code for distribution as a closed-source library. In that case, yes, make sure none of your user-facing classes have public fields and use trivial properties as needed. If however you are like 99% of C# developers and writing code purely for internal consumption within your project, then why is recompilation a big concern? Just about any other change you make is going to require recompilation too, and so what if it does? Last I checked, it is no longer 1995, we have fast computers with fast compilers and incremental linkers, even larger recompilations shouldn't need more than a few minutes, and it has been quite some time since I have been able to use "my code's compiling" as an excuse for swordfighting through the office.
You can't databind against a variable: Great, when you need to do that, make it into a property.
Properties have features that make them better for debugging like reflection and setting breakpoints: Great, one you need to use one of those things, make it into a property. When you're done debugging and ready to release, if you don't still need those functionalities, change it back into a field.
Properties allow you to override behavior in derived classes: Great, if you are making a base class where you think such a scenario is likely, then make the appropriate members into properties. If you're not sure, leave it as a field and you can change it later. Yes, that will probably require some recompilation, but again, so what?
So in summary, yes there are some legitimate uses for trivial properties, but unless you are making a closed source library for public release, fields are easy enough to convert into properties when needed, and an irrational fear of public fields is just some object oriented dogma that we would do well to rid ourselves of.
For me, the absolute deal breaker for not using public fields was the lack of IntelliSense, showing the references:
Which is not available for fields.
If you decide later to check that the title is unique, by comparing to a collection or a database, you can do that in the property without changing any code that depends on it.
If you go with just a public attribute then you will have less flexibility.
The extra flexibility without breaking the contract is what is most important to me about using properties, and, until I actually need the flexibility, auto-generation makes the most sense.
One thing you can do with Fields but not with Properties (or didn't used to be able to ... I'll come to that in a moment) is that Fields can be designated as readonly whereas Properties cannot. So Fields give you a clear way of indicating your intention that a variable is there to be set (from within the constructor) at object-instantiation time only and should not be changed thereafter. Yes, you can set a Property to have a private setter, but that just says "this is not to be changed from outside the class", which is not the same as "this is not to be changed after instantiation" - you can still change it post-instantiation from within the class. And yes you can set the backing field of your property to be readonly, but that moves post-instantiation attempts to change it to being run-time errors rather than compile-time errors. So readonly Fields did something useful which Properties cannot.
However, that changes with C# 9, whereby we get this helpful syntax for Properties:
public string Height { get; init; }
which says "this can get used from outside of the class but it may only be set when the object is initialized", whereupon the readonly advantage of Fields disappears.
One thing I find very useful as well as all the code and testing reasons is that if it is a property vs a field is that the Visual Studio IDE shows you the references for a property but not a field.
My pov after did some researches
Validation.
Allow overriding the accessor to change the behaviour of a property.
Debugging purpose. We'll be able to know when and what the property change by setting a breakpoint in the accessor.
We can have a field set-only. For instance, public set() and private get(). This is not possible with the public field.
It really gives us more possibility and extensibility.
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.
This question already has answers here:
Are there any reasons to use private properties in C#?
(19 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
For private class variables, which one is preferred?
If you have a property like int limit, you want it to be:
int Limit {get; set;}
and use it inside the class, like so:
this.Limit
Is there a reason to use it or not use it? Maybe for performance reasons?
I wonder if this is a good practice.
For a private member, I only make it a property when getting and/or setting the value should cause something else to occur, like:
private int Limit
{
get
{
EnsureValue();
return this._limit;
}
}
Otherwise, fields are fine. If you need to increase their accessibility, it's already a big enough change that making it a property at that point isn't a huge deal.
Edit: as Scott reminds us in the comments, side effects in properties can often cause more pain than anything else. Don't violate Single Responsibility and limit property logic to consistent, logical operations on the value only that must be done at the gate - such as lazy loading (as in the example above), transforming an internal structure into a publicly-useful format, etc.
The only real benefit an auto-property has over a field when the accessibility is private is that you can set a breakpoint on accesses and updates of the variable. If that is important to your scenario then definitely use an auto-property. Otherwise, given there is no substantial advantage, I choose to go with the simplest construct which is a field.
I would say its good practice to use a property. If ever you had to expose the limit value and used a local member it will require more coding while if its a property it would only require a change of its modifier.
I think it's cleaner also.
Granted, since it's a private API, its an implementation detail - you can do whatever you want here. However, there is very little reason to not use a property, even for private classes. The properties get inlined away by the JIT, unless there is extra code in place, so there isn't really a performance impact.
The biggest reasons to prefer properties, IMO, are:
Consistency in your API - You'll want properties in publicly exposed APIs, so making them in the private API will make your programming exprience more consistent, which leads to less bugs due to better maintainability
Easier to convert private class to public
From my perspective, using properties in lieu of variables boils down to:
Pros
Can set a break point for debugging, as Jared mentioned,
Can cause side-effects, like Rex's EnsureValue(),
The get and set can have different access restrictions (public get, protected set),
Can be utilized in Property Editors,
Cons
Slower access, uses method calls.
Code bulk, harder to read (IMO).
More difficult to initialize, like requiring EnsureValue();
Not all of these apply to int Limit {get; set;} style properties.
The point of automatic properties is they are very quick at creating a public access to some field in your class. Now, they offer no benefit over exposing straight up fields to the outside world, other than one big one.
Your class' interface is how it communicates with the outside world. Using automatic properties over fields allows you to change the internals of your class down the road in case you need to make setting the value of that property do something or check authorization rules or something similar on the read.
The fact that you already have a property means you can change your implementation without breaking your public interface.
Therefore, if this is just a private field, an automatic property isn't really that useful, not only that, but you can't initialize public properties at declaration like you can with fields.
I generally follow the following principle: If it's for strictly private use, use a field as it is faster.
If you decide that it should become public, protected or internal some day, it's not difficult to refactor to a property anyway, and with tools like ReSharper, it takes about 3 seconds to do so... :)
There's nothing wrong with having private or protected properties; this is mostly useful when there is some rule or side effect associated with the underlying variable.
The reason why properties seem more natural for public variables is that in the public case, it is a way to hedge one's bet against future implementation changes, whereby the property will remain intact but the implementation details somehow move around (and/or some additional business rule will be needed).
On performance, this is typically insignificant, or indeed identical for straight-assignment properties.
I personally dislike (but often use) plain assignment properties because they just clutter the code. I wish C# would allow for "after the fact refactoring".
Properties provide some very good automatic features (like Json and Xml Serialization)
Fields do not.
Properties can also be a part of an Interface. If you decide to refactor later on... this might be something to consider too.
Properties are just syntactic sugar, C# will compile them into get_PropertyName and set_PropertyName, so performance differences are not a consideration.
If your data member need only set and get logic then properties are very good and fast solution in C#
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Other being able to sanity check values in a setter is there a more underlying reason to prefer properties to public variables?
We've had this subject before but I can't find anything now.
In brief: your needs might change: where there's no sanity check now, one might be required in the future. However, if you change your public fields to properties, this breaks binary compatiblity: every client who uses your code/library would have to re-compile.
This is bad because it potentially costs a lot of money.
Using properties from the beginning avoids this problem. This even counts for code that is not part of a library. Why? Because you never know: the code (even if highly domain-specific!) might prove useful so you want to refactor it to a library. This refactoring process is obviously made much easier if you are already using properties in place of public/protected fields.
Additionally, writing public properties is easy in C# 3.0 because you can just use the auto-implemented properties, saving you quite a bit of code:
public DataType MyProperty { get; set; }
Will implement the necessary backing field and getter/setter code for you.
I will add a personal note: .NET's behaviour in this regard is somewhat lazy. The compiler could just change public fields to properties on the fly, thus avoiding the problem. VB6 already did this for COM-exposed classes and I see absolutely no reason for VB.NET and C# not to do the same. Perhaps someone on the compiler teams (Jared?) could comment on this.
In a nutshell:
You can control acces (readonly,
writeonly, read/write)
You can validate values when setting
a property (check for null etc)
You can do additional processing,
such as lazy initialization
You can change the underlying
implementation. For example, a
property may be backed by a member
variable now, but you can change it
to be backed by a DB row without
breaking any user code.
Jeff Atwood has blogged about it:
There are valid reasons to make a trivial property, exactly as depicted above:
Reflection works differently on variables vs. properties, so if you rely on reflection, it's easier to use all properties.
You can't databind against a variable.
Changing a variable to a property is a breaking change.
It's a shame there's so much meaningless friction between variables and properties; most of the time they do the exact same thing. Kevin Dente proposed a bit of new syntax that would give us the best of both worlds:
public property int Name;
However, if the distinction between variable and property is such an ongoing problem, I wonder if a more radical solution is in order. Couldn't we ditch variables entirely in favor of properties? Don't properties do exactly the same thing as variables, but with better granular control over visibility?
Changing a field to a property in the future is considered a breaking change. Fields are considered implementation details of classes and exposing them publicly breaks encapsulation.
Use of properties makes your code more object oriented. By making member variables public, you are exposing your implementation.
Also see this link from C#'s Programming Guide
You can also protect write access and allow read access with a property:
public int Version { get; private set; }
If you work in a closed environment -- you dont develop a SDK, all classes are used within a same project framework -- there is no difference.
The usual argument is that "in the future you may need to do some check on the values, so it is easier with properties". I dont buy it at all.
Using public fields is more readable, less decoration and easier to use.
Yes.
Consider a public varibale which now holds a string, you can simply set it. However, if you decide that that public variable should hold an object which should be initialized with a string then you would have to change all your code using your original object. But if you would have used setter you would only have to change the setter to initialize the object with the provided string.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Note: This was posted when I was starting out C#. With 2014 knowledge, I can truly say that auto-properties are among the best things that ever happened to the C# language.
I am used to create my properties in C# using a private and a public field:
private string title;
public string Title
{
get { return title; }
set { title = value; }
}
Now, with .NET 3.0, we got auto-properties:
public string Title { get; set; }
I know this is more a philosophical/subjective questions, but is there any reason to use these auto-properties except from saving five lines of code for each field? My personal gripe is that those properties are hiding stuff from me, and I am not a big fan of black magic.
In fact, the hidden private field does not even show up in the debugger, which is OK given the fact that the get/set functions do nothing. But when I want to actually implement some getter/setter logic, I have to use the private/public pair anyway.
I see the benefit that I save a lot of code (one vs six lines) without losing the ability to change the getter/setter logic later, but then again I can already do that by simply declaring a public field "Public string Title" without the need of the { get; set; } block, thus even saving more code.
So, what am I missing here? Why would anyone actually want to use auto-properties?
We use them all the time in Stack Overflow.
You may also be interested in a discussion of Properties vs. Public Variables. IMHO that's really what this is a reaction to, and for that purpose, it's great.
Yes, it does just save code. It's miles easier to read when you have loads of them. They're quicker to write and easier to maintain. Saving code is always a good goal.
You can set different scopes:
public string PropertyName { get; private set; }
So that the property can only be changed inside the class. This isn't really immutable as you can still access the private setter through reflection.
As of C#6 you can also create true readonly properties - i.e. immutable properties that cannot be changed outside of the constructor:
public string PropertyName { get; }
public MyClass() { this.PropertyName = "whatever"; }
At compile time that will become:
readonly string pName;
public string PropertyName { get { return this.pName; } }
public MyClass() { this.pName = "whatever"; }
In immutable classes with a lot of members this saves a lot of excess code.
The three big downsides to using fields instead of properties are:
You can't databind to a field whereas you can to a property
If you start off using a field, you can't later (easily) change them to a property
There are some attributes that you can add to a property that you can't add to a field
I personally love auto-properties. What's wrong with saving the lines of code? If you want to do stuff in getters or setters, there's no problem to convert them to normal properties later on.
As you said you could use fields, and if you wanted to add logic to them later you'd convert them to properties. But this might present problems with any use of reflection (and possibly elsewhere?).
Also the properties allow you to set different access levels for the getter and setter which you can't do with a field.
I guess it's the same as the var keyword. A matter of personal preference.
From Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++:
I particularly dislike classes with a lot of get and set functions. That is often an indication that it shouldn't have been a class in the first place. It's just a data structure. And if it really is a data structure, make it a data structure.
And you know what? He's right. How often are you simply wrapping private fields in a get and set, without actually doing anything within the get/set, simply because it's the "object oriented" thing to do. This is Microsoft's solution to the problem; they're basically public fields that you can bind to.
One thing nobody seems to have mentioned is how auto-properties are unfortunately not useful for immutable objects (usually immutable structs). Because for that you really should do:
private readonly string title;
public string Title
{
get { return this.title; }
}
(where the field is initialized in the constructor via a passed parameter, and then is read only.)
So this has advantages over a simple get/private set autoproperty.
I always create properties instead of public fields because you can use properties in an interface definition, you can't use public fields in an interface definition.
Auto-properties are as much a black magic as anything else in C#. Once you think about it in terms of compiling down to IL rather than it being expanded to a normal C# property first it's a lot less black magic than a lot of other language constructs.
I use auto-properties all the time. Before C#3 I couldn't be bothered with all the typing and just used public variables instead.
The only thing I miss is being able to do this:
public string Name = "DefaultName";
You have to shift the defaults into your constructors with properties. tedious :-(
I think any construct that is intuitive AND reduces the lines of code is a big plus.
Those kinds of features are what makes languages like Ruby so powerful (that and dynamic features, which also help reduce excess code).
Ruby has had this all along as:
attr_accessor :my_property
attr_reader :my_getter
attr_writer :my_setter
The only problem I have with them is that they don't go far enough. The same release of the compiler that added automatic properties, added partial methods. Why they didnt put the two together is beyond me. A simple "partial On<PropertyName>Changed" would have made these things really really useful.
It's simple, it's short and if you want to create a real implementation inside the property's body somewhere down the line, it won't break your type's external interface.
As simple as that.
One thing to note here is that, to my understanding, this is just syntactic sugar on the C# 3.0 end, meaning that the IL generated by the compiler is the same. I agree about avoiding black magic, but all the same, fewer lines for the same thing is usually a good thing.
In my opinion, you should always use auto-properties instead of public fields. That said, here's a compromise:
Start off with an internal field using the naming convention you'd use for a property. When you first either
need access to the field from outside its assembly, or
need to attach logic to a getter/setter
Do this:
rename the field
make it private
add a public property
Your client code won't need to change.
Someday, though, your system will grow and you'll decompose it into separate assemblies and multiple solutions. When that happens, any exposed fields will come back to haunt you because, as Jeff mentioned, changing a public field to a public property is a breaking API change.
I use CodeRush, it's faster than auto-properties.
To do this:
private string title;
public string Title
{
get { return title; }
set { title = value; }
}
Requires eight keystrokes total.
#Domenic : I don't get it.. can't you do this with auto-properties?:
public string Title { get; }
or
public string Title { get; private set; }
Is this what you are referring to?
My biggest gripe with auto-properties is that they are designed to save time but I often find I have to expand them into full blown properties later.
What VS2008 is missing is an Explode Auto-Property refactor.
The fact we have an encapsulate field refactor makes the way I work quicker to just use public fields.