Object Oriented - Class Variables

Object Oriented - Class Variables - c#

I am pretty new to OOP and looking into things in a bit more depth, but I have a bit of confusion between these 3 methods in C# and which one is best and what the differences are between 2 of them.
Example 1
So lets start with this one, which (so I understand) is the wrong way to do it:
public class MyClass
{
public string myAttribute;
}
and in this way I can set the attribute directly using:
myObject.myAttribute = "something";
Example 2
The next way I have seen and that seems to be recomended is this:
public class MyClass
{
public string myAttribute { get; set;}
}
With getters and setters, this where I dont understand the difference between the first 2 as the variable can still be set directly on the object?
Example 3
The third way, and the way that I understand the theory behind, is creating a set function
public class MyClass
{
string myAttribute;
public void setAttribute(string newSetting)
{
myAttribute = newSetting;
//obviously you can apply some logic in here to remove unwanted characters or validate etc.
}
}
So, what are the differences between the three? I assume example 1 is a big no-no so which is best out of 2 and 3, and why use one over the other?
Thanks

The second
public class MyClass
{
public string MyAttribute { get; set;}
}
is basically shorthand for:
public class MyClass
{
private string myPrivateAttribute;
public string MyAttribute
{
get {return myPrivateAttribute;}
set {myPrivateAttribute = value;}
}
}
That is an auto-implemented property, which is exactly the same as any regular property, you just do not have to implement it, when the compiler can do that for you.
So, what is a property? It's nothing more than a couple of methods, coupled with a name. I could do:
public class MyClass
{
private string myPrivateAttribute;
public string GetMyAttribute()
{
return myPrivateAttribute;
}
public void SetMyAttribute(string value)
{
myPrivateAttribute = value;
}
}
but then instead of writing
myClass.MyAttribute = "something";
string variable = myClass.MyAttribute;
I would have to use the more verbose, but not necessarily clearer form:
myClass.SetMyAttribute("something");
string variable = myClass.GetMyAttribute();
Note that nothing constraints the contents of the get and set methods (accessors in C# terminology), they are methods, just like any other. You can add as much or as little logic as you need inside them. I.e. it is useful to make a prototype with auto-implemented properties, and later to add any necessary logic (e.g. log property access, or add lazy initalization) with an explicit implementation.

What your asking here has to do with encapsulation in OOP languages.
The difference between them is in the way you can access the propriety of an object after you created an object from your class.
In the fist example you can access it directly new MyClass().MyAttribute whether you get or set it's value.
In the second example you declare 2 basic functions for accessing it:
public string MyAttribute
{
get {return myPrivateAttribute;}
set {myPrivateAttribute = value;}
}
In the third example you declare your own method for setting the value. This is useful if you want to customize the setter. For example you don't want to set the value passed, but the value multiplied by 2 or something else...
I recommend some reading. You can find something here and here.

Property is a syntactic sugar over private attribute with get and set methods and it's realy helpful and fast to type;
You may treat automatic property with { get; set;} as a public attribute. It has no additional logic but you may add it later without uset ever notice it.
Just exchange
public string MyLine { get; set;}
to
string myLine;
public string MyLine
{
get { return myLine; }
set { myLine = value + Environment.NewLine; }
}
for example if you need so.
You can also easily create read only property as { get; private set }.
So use Properties instead of public attributes every time just because its easier and faster to write and it's provides better encapsulation because user should not be used get and set methods if you decide to use it in new version of yours programm.

One of the main principles of OOP is encapsulation, and this is essentially the difference between the first example and the other 2.
The first example you have a private field which is exposed directly from the object - this is bad because you are allowing mutation of internal data from outside the object and therefore have no control over it.
The other 2 examples are syntactically equivalent, the second being recommended simply because it's less code to write. However, more importantly they both restrict access & control mutation of the internal data so give you complete control over how the data should be managed - this is ecapsulation.

Related

Why does get, set help me in c# [duplicate]

In C#, what makes a field different from a property, and when should a field be used instead of a property?

Properties expose fields. Fields should (almost always) be kept private to a class and accessed via get and set properties. Properties provide a level of abstraction allowing you to change the fields while not affecting the external way they are accessed by the things that use your class.
public class MyClass
{
// this is a field. It is private to your class and stores the actual data.
private string _myField;
// this is a property. When accessed it uses the underlying field,
// but only exposes the contract, which will not be affected by the underlying field
public string MyProperty
{
get
{
return _myField;
}
set
{
_myField = value;
}
}
// This is an AutoProperty (C# 3.0 and higher) - which is a shorthand syntax
// used to generate a private field for you
public int AnotherProperty { get; set; }
}
#Kent points out that Properties are not required to encapsulate fields, they could do a calculation on other fields, or serve other purposes.
#GSS points out that you can also do other logic, such as validation, when a property is accessed, another useful feature.

Object orientated programming principles say that, the internal workings of a class should be hidden from the outside world. If you expose a field you're in essence exposing the internal implementation of the class. Therefore we wrap fields with Properties (or methods in Java's case) to give us the ability to change the implementation without breaking code depending on us. Seeing as we can put logic in the Property also allows us to perform validation logic etc if we need it.
C# 3 has the possibly confusing notion of autoproperties. This allows us to simply define the Property and the C#3 compiler will generate the private field for us.
public class Person
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
_name = value;
}
}
public int Age{get;set;} //AutoProperty generates private field for us
}

An important difference is that interfaces can have properties but not fields. This, to me, underlines that properties should be used to define a class's public interface while fields are meant to be used in the private, internal workings of a class. As a rule I rarely create public fields and similarly I rarely create non-public properties.

I'll give you a couple examples of using properties that might get the gears turning:
Lazy Initialization: If you have a property of an object that's expensive to load, but isn't accessed all that much in normal runs of the code, you can delay its loading via the property. That way, it's just sitting there, but the first time another module tries to call that property, it checks if the underlying field is null - if it is, it goes ahead and loads it, unknown to the calling module. This can greatly speed up object initialization.
Dirty Tracking: Which I actually learned about from my own question here on StackOverflow. When I have a lot of objects which values might have changed during a run, I can use the property to track if they need to be saved back to the database or not. If not a single property of an object has changed, the IsDirty flag won't get tripped, and therefore the saving functionality will skip over it when deciding what needs to get back to the database.

Using Properties, you can raise an event, when the value of the property is changed (aka. PropertyChangedEvent) or before the value is changed to support cancellation.
This is not possible with (direct access to) fields.
public class Person {
private string _name;
public event EventHandler NameChanging;
public event EventHandler NameChanged;
public string Name{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
OnNameChanging();
_name = value;
OnNameChanged();
}
}
private void OnNameChanging(){
NameChanging?.Invoke(this,EventArgs.Empty);
}
private void OnNameChanged(){
NameChanged?.Invoke(this,EventArgs.Empty);
}
}

Since many of them have explained with technical pros and cons of Properties and Field, it's time to get into real time examples.
1. Properties allows you to set the read-only access level
Consider the case of dataTable.Rows.Count and dataTable.Columns[i].Caption. They come from the class DataTable and both are public to us. The difference in the access-level to them is that we cannot set value to dataTable.Rows.Count but we can read and write to dataTable.Columns[i].Caption. Is that possible through Field? No!!! This can be done with Properties only.
public class DataTable
{
public class Rows
{
private string _count;
// This Count will be accessable to us but have used only "get" ie, readonly
public int Count
{
get
{
return _count;
}
}
}
public class Columns
{
private string _caption;
// Used both "get" and "set" ie, readable and writable
public string Caption
{
get
{
return _caption;
}
set
{
_caption = value;
}
}
}
}
2. Properties in PropertyGrid
You might have worked with Button in Visual Studio. Its properties are shown in the PropertyGrid like Text,Name etc. When we drag and drop a button, and when we click the properties, it will automatically find the class Button and filters Properties and show that in PropertyGrid (where PropertyGrid won't show Field even though they are public).
public class Button
{
private string _text;
private string _name;
private string _someProperty;
public string Text
{
get
{
return _text;
}
set
{
_text = value;
}
}
public string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
_name = value;
}
}
[Browsable(false)]
public string SomeProperty
{
get
{
return _someProperty;
}
set
{
_someProperty= value;
}
}
In PropertyGrid, the properties Name and Text will be shown, but not SomeProperty. Why??? Because Properties can accept Attributes. It does not show in case where [Browsable(false)] is false.
3. Can execute statements inside Properties
public class Rows
{
private string _count;
public int Count
{
get
{
return CalculateNoOfRows();
}
}
public int CalculateNoOfRows()
{
// Calculation here and finally set the value to _count
return _count;
}
}
4. Only Properties can be used in Binding Source
Binding Source helps us to decrease the number of lines of code. Fields are not accepted by BindingSource. We should use Properties for that.
5. Debugging mode
Consider we are using Field to hold a value. At some point we need to debug and check where the value is getting null for that field. It will be difficult to do where the number of lines of code are more than 1000. In such situations we can use Property and can set debug mode inside Property.
public string Name
{
// Can set debug mode inside get or set
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
_name = value;
}
}

DIFFERENCES - USES (when and why)
A field is a variable that is declared directly in a class or struct. A class or struct may have instance fields or static fields or both. Generally, you should use fields only for variables that have private or protected accessibility. Data that your class exposes to client code should be provided through methods, properties and indexers. By using these constructs for indirect access to internal fields, you can guard against invalid input values.
A property is a member that provides a flexible mechanism to read, write, or compute the value of a private field. Properties can be used as if they are public data members, but they are actually special methods called accessors. This enables data to be accessed easily and still helps promote the safety and flexibility of methods.
Properties enable a class to expose a public way of getting and setting values, while hiding implementation or verification code. A get property accessor is used to return the property value, and a set accessor is used to assign a new value.

Though fields and properties look to be similar to each other, they are 2 completely different language elements.
Fields are the only mechanism how to store data on class level. Fields are conceptually variables at class scope. If you want to store some data to instances of your classes (objects) you need to use fields. There is no other choice. Properties can't store any data even though, it may look they are able to do so. See bellow.
Properties on the other hand never store data. They are just the pairs of methods (get and set) that can be syntactically called in a similar way as fields and in most cases they access (for read or write) fields, which is the source of some confusion. But because property methods are (with some limitations like fixed prototype) regular C# methods they can do whatever regular methods can do. It means they can have 1000 lines of code, they can throw exceptions, call another methods, can be even virtual, abstract or overridden. What makes properties special, is the fact that C# compiler stores some extra metadata into assemblies that can be used to search for specific properties - widely used feature.
Get and set property methods has the following prototypes.
PROPERTY_TYPE get();
void set(PROPERTY_TYPE value);
So it means that properties can be 'emulated' by defining a field and 2 corresponding methods.
class PropertyEmulation
{
private string MSomeValue;
public string GetSomeValue()
{
return(MSomeValue);
}
public void SetSomeValue(string value)
{
MSomeValue=value;
}
}
Such property emulation is typical for programming languages that don't support properties - like standard C++. In C# there you should always prefer properties as the way how to access to your fields.
Because only the fields can store a data, it means that more fields class contains, more memory objects of such class will consume. On the other hand, adding new properties into a class doesn't make objects of such class bigger. Here is the example.
class OneHundredFields
{
public int Field1;
public int Field2;
...
public int Field100;
}
OneHundredFields Instance=new OneHundredFields() // Variable 'Instance' consumes 100*sizeof(int) bytes of memory.
class OneHundredProperties
{
public int Property1
{
get
{
return(1000);
}
set
{
// Empty.
}
}
public int Property2
{
get
{
return(1000);
}
set
{
// Empty.
}
}
...
public int Property100
{
get
{
return(1000);
}
set
{
// Empty.
}
}
}
OneHundredProperties Instance=new OneHundredProperties() // !!!!! Variable 'Instance' consumes 0 bytes of memory. (In fact a some bytes are consumed becasue every object contais some auxiliarity data, but size doesn't depend on number of properties).
Though property methods can do anything, in most cases they serve as a way how to access objects' fields. If you want to make a field accessible to other classes you can do by 2 ways.
Making fields as public - not advisable.
Using properties.
Here is a class using public fields.
class Name
{
public string FullName;
public int YearOfBirth;
public int Age;
}
Name name=new Name();
name.FullName="Tim Anderson";
name.YearOfBirth=1979;
name.Age=40;
While the code is perfectly valid, from design point of view, it has several drawbacks. Because fields can be both read and written, you can't prevent user from writing to fields. You can apply readonly keyword, but in this way, you have to initialize readonly fields only in constructor. What's more, nothing prevents you to store invalid values into your fields.
name.FullName=null;
name.YearOfBirth=2200;
name.Age=-140;
The code is valid, all assignments will be executed though they are illogical. Age has a negative value, YearOfBirth is far in future and doesn't correspond to Age and FullName is null. With fields you can't prevent users of class Name to make such mistakes.
Here is a code with properties that fixes these issues.
class Name
{
private string MFullName="";
private int MYearOfBirth;
public string FullName
{
get
{
return(MFullName);
}
set
{
if (value==null)
{
throw(new InvalidOperationException("Error !"));
}
MFullName=value;
}
}
public int YearOfBirth
{
get
{
return(MYearOfBirth);
}
set
{
if (MYearOfBirth<1900 || MYearOfBirth>DateTime.Now.Year)
{
throw(new InvalidOperationException("Error !"));
}
MYearOfBirth=value;
}
}
public int Age
{
get
{
return(DateTime.Now.Year-MYearOfBirth);
}
}
public string FullNameInUppercase
{
get
{
return(MFullName.ToUpper());
}
}
}
The updated version of class has the following advantages.
FullName and YearOfBirth are checked for invalid values.
Age is not writtable. It's callculated from YearOfBirth and current year.
A new property FullNameInUppercase converts FullName to UPPER CASE. This is a little contrived example of property usage, where properties are commonly used to present field values in the format that is more appropriate for user - for instance using current locale on specific numeric of DateTime format.
Beside this, properties can be defined as virtual or overridden - simply because they are regular .NET methods. The same rules applies for such property methods as for regular methods.
C# also supports indexers which are the properties that have an index parameter in property methods. Here is the example.
class MyList
{
private string[] MBuffer;
public MyList()
{
MBuffer=new string[100];
}
public string this[int Index]
{
get
{
return(MBuffer[Index]);
}
set
{
MBuffer[Index]=value;
}
}
}
MyList List=new MyList();
List[10]="ABC";
Console.WriteLine(List[10]);
Since C# 3.0 allows you to define automatic properties. Here is the example.
class AutoProps
{
public int Value1
{
get;
set;
}
public int Value2
{
get;
set;
}
}
Even though class AutoProps contains only properties (or it looks like), it can store 2 values and size of objects of this class is equal to sizeof(Value1)+sizeof(Value2)=4+4=8 bytes.
The reason for this is simple. When you define an automatic property, C# compiler generates automatic code that contains hidden field and a property with property methods accessing this hidden field. Here is the code compiler produces.
Here is a code generated by the ILSpy from compiled assembly. Class contains generated hidden fields and properties.
internal class AutoProps
{
[CompilerGenerated]
[DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never)]
private int <Value1>k__BackingField;
[CompilerGenerated]
[DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never)]
private int <Value2>k__BackingField;
public int Value1
{
[CompilerGenerated]
get
{
return <Value1>k__BackingField;
}
[CompilerGenerated]
set
{
<Value1>k__BackingField = value;
}
}
public int Value2
{
[CompilerGenerated]
get
{
return <Value2>k__BackingField;
}
[CompilerGenerated]
set
{
<Value2>k__BackingField = value;
}
}
}
So, as you can see, the compiler still uses the fields to store the values - since fields are the only way how to store values into objects.
So as you can see, though properties and fields have similar usage syntax they are very different concepts. Even if you use automatic properties or events - hidden fields are generated by compiler where the real data are stored.
If you need to make a field value accessible to the outside world (users of your class) don't use public or protected fields. Fields always should be marked as private. Properties allow you to make value checks, formatting, conversions etc. and generally make your code safer, more readable and more extensible for future modifications.

Properties have the primary advantage of allowing you to change the way data on an object is accessed without breaking it's public interface. For example, if you need to add extra validation, or to change a stored field into a calculated you can do so easily if you initially exposed the field as a property. If you just exposed a field directly, then you would have to change the public interface of your class to add the new functionality. That change would break existing clients, requiring them to be recompiled before they could use the new version of your code.
If you write a class library designed for wide consumption (like the .NET Framework, which is used by millions of people), that can be a problem. However, if you are writing a class used internally inside a small code base (say <= 50 K lines), it's really not a big deal, because no one would be adversely affected by your changes. In that case it really just comes down to personal preference.

Properties support asymmetric access, i.e. you can have either a getter and a setter or just one of the two. Similarly properties support individual accessibility for getter/setter. Fields are always symmetric, i.e. you can always both get and set the value. Exception to this is readonly fields which obviously cannot be set after initialization.
Properties may run for a very long time, have side effects, and may even throw exceptions. Fields are fast, with no side effects, and will never throw exceptions. Due to side effects a property may return a different value for each call (as may be the case for DateTime.Now, i.e. DateTime.Now is not always equal to DateTime.Now). Fields always return the same value.
Fields may be used for out / ref parameters, properties may not.
Properties support additional logic – this could be used to implement lazy loading among other things.
Properties support a level of abstraction by encapsulating whatever it means to get/set the value.
Use properties in most / all cases, but try to avoid side effects.

In the background a property is compiled into methods. So a Name property is compiled into get_Name() and set_Name(string value). You can see this if you study the compiled code.
So there is a (very) small performance overhead when using them. Normally you will always use a Property if you expose a field to the outside, and you will often use it internally if you need to do validation of the value.

When you want your private variable(field) to be accessible to object of your class from other classes you need to create properties for those variables.
for example if I have variables named as "id" and "name" which is private
but there might be situation where this variable needed for read/write operation outside of the class. At that situation , property can help me to get that variable to read/write depending upon the get/set defined for the property. A property can be a readonly / writeonly / readwrite both.
here is the demo
class Employee
{
// Private Fields for Employee
private int id;
private string name;
//Property for id variable/field
public int EmployeeId
{
get
{
return id;
}
set
{
id = value;
}
}
//Property for name variable/field
public string EmployeeName
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
}
class MyMain
{
public static void Main(string [] args)
{
Employee aEmployee = new Employee();
aEmployee.EmployeeId = 101;
aEmployee.EmployeeName = "Sundaran S";
}
}

The second question here, "when should a field be used instead of a property?", is only briefly touched on in this other answer and kinda this one too, but not really much detail.
In general, all the other answers are spot-on about good design: prefer exposing properties over exposing fields. While you probably won't regularly find yourself saying "wow, imagine how much worse things would be if I had made this a field instead of a property", it's so much more rare to think of a situation where you would say "wow, thank God I used a field here instead of a property."
But there's one advantage that fields have over properties, and that's their ability to be used as "ref" / "out" parameters. Suppose you have a method with the following signature:
public void TransformPoint(ref double x, ref double y);
and suppose that you want to use that method to transform an array created like this:
System.Windows.Point[] points = new Point[1000000];
Initialize(points);
Here's I think the fastest way to do it, since X and Y are properties:
for (int i = 0; i < points.Length; i++)
{
double x = points[i].X;
double y = points[i].Y;
TransformPoint(ref x, ref y);
points[i].X = x;
points[i].Y = y;
}
And that's going to be pretty good! Unless you have measurements that prove otherwise, there's no reason to throw a stink. But I believe it's not technically guaranteed to be as fast as this:
internal struct MyPoint
{
internal double X;
internal double Y;
}
// ...
MyPoint[] points = new MyPoint[1000000];
Initialize(points);
// ...
for (int i = 0; i < points.Length; i++)
{
TransformPoint(ref points[i].X, ref points[i].Y);
}
Doing some measurements myself, the version with fields takes about 61% of the time as the version with properties (.NET 4.6, Windows 7, x64, release mode, no debugger attached). The more expensive the TransformPoint method gets, the less pronounced that the difference becomes. To repeat this yourself, run with the first line commented-out and with it not commented-out.
Even if there were no performance benefits for the above, there are other places where being able to use ref and out parameters might be beneficial, such as when calling the Interlocked or Volatile family of methods. Note: In case this is new to you, Volatile is basically a way to get at the same behavior provided by the volatile keyword. As such, like volatile, it doesn't magically solve all thread-safety woes like its name suggests that it might.
I definitely don't want to seem like I'm advocating that you go "oh, I should start exposing fields instead of properties." The point is that if you need to regularly use these members in calls that take "ref" or "out" parameters, especially on something that might be a simple value type that's unlikely to ever need any of the value-added elements of properties, an argument can be made.

Also, properties allow you to use logic when setting values.
So you can say you only want to set a value to an integer field, if the value is greater than x, otherwise throw an exception.
Really useful feature.

(This should really be a comment, but I can't post a comment, so please excuse if it is not appropriate as a post).
I once worked at a place where the recommended practice was to use public fields instead of properties when the equivalent property def would just have been accessing a field, as in :
get { return _afield; }
set { _afield = value; }
Their reasoning was that the public field could be converted into a property later in future if required. It seemed a little strange to me at the time. Judging by these posts, it looks like not many here would agree either. What might you have said to try to change things ?
Edit : I should add that all of the code base at this place was compiled at the same time, so they might have thought that changing the public interface of classes (by changing a public field to a property) was not a problem.

Technically, i don't think that there is a difference, because properties are just wrappers around fields created by the user or automatically created by the compiler.The purpose of properties is to enforce encapsuation and to offer a lightweight method-like feature.
It's just a bad practice to declare fields as public, but it does not have any issues.

Fields are ordinary member variables or member instances of a class. Properties are an abstraction to get and set their values. Properties are also called accessors because they offer a way to change and retrieve a field if you expose a field in the class as private. Generally, you should declare your member variables private, then declare or define properties for them.
class SomeClass
{
int numbera; //Field
//Property
public static int numbera { get; set;}
}

If you are going to use thread primitives you are forced to use fields. Properties can break your threaded code. Apart from that, what cory said is correct.

My design of a field is that a field needs to be modified only by its parent, hence the class. Result the variable becomes private, then to be able to give the right to read the classes / methods outside I go through the system of property with only the Get. The field is then retrieved by the property and read-only! If you want to modify it you have to go through methods (for example the constructor) and I find that thanks to this way of making you secure, we have better control over our code because we "flange". One could very well always put everything in public so every possible case, the notion of variables / methods / classes etc ... in my opinion is just an aid to the development, maintenance of the code. For example, if a person resumes a code with public fields, he can do anything and therefore things "illogical" in relation to the objective, the logic of why the code was written. It's my point of view.
When i use a classic model private field / public readonly properties,for 10 privates fields i should write 10 publics properties! The code can be really big faster. I discover the private setter and now i only use public properties with a private setter.
The setter create in background a private field.
That why my old classic programming style was:
public class MyClass
{
private int _id;
public int ID { get { return _id; } }
public MyClass(int id)
{
_id = id;
}
}
My new programming style:
public class MyClass
{
public int ID { get; private set; }
public MyClass(int id)
{
ID = id;
}
}

Basic and general difference is:
Fields
ALWAYS give both get and set access
CAN NOT cause side effects (throwing exceptions, calling methods, changing fields except the one being got/set, etc)
Properties
NOT ALWAYS give both get and set access
CAN cause side effects

Properties encapsulate fields, thus enabling you to perform additional processing on the value to be set or retrieved. It is typically overkill to use properties if you will not be doing any pre- or postprocessing on the field value.

IMO, Properties are just the "SetXXX()" "GetXXX()" functions/methods/interfaces pairs we used before, but they are more concise and elegant.

Traditionally private fields are set via getter and setter methods. For the sake of less code you can use properties to set fields instead.

when you have a class which is "Car". The properties are color,shape..
Where as fields are variables defined within the scope of a class.

From Wikipedia -- Object-oriented programming:
Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm based on the concept of "objects", which are data structures that contain data, in the form of fields, often known as attributes; and code, in the form of procedures, often known as methods. (emphasis added)
Properties are actually part of an object's behavior, but are designed to give consumers of the object the illusion/abstraction of working with the object's data.

Properties are special kind of class member, In properties we use a predefined Set or Get method.They use accessors through which we can read, written or change the values of the private fields.
For example, let us take a class named Employee, with private fields for name, age and Employee_Id. We cannot access these fields from outside the class , but we can access these private fields through properties.
Why do we use properties?
Making the class field public & exposing it is risky, as you will not have control what gets assigned & returned.
To understand this clearly with an example lets take a student class who have ID, passmark, name. Now in this example some problem with public field
ID should not be -ve.
Name can not be set to null
Pass mark should be read only.
If student name is missing No Name should be return.
To remove this problem We use Get and set method.
// A simple example
public class student
{
public int ID;
public int passmark;
public string name;
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
student s1 = new student();
s1.ID = -101; // here ID can't be -ve
s1.Name = null ; // here Name can't be null
}
}
Now we take an example of get and set method
public class student
{
private int _ID;
private int _passmark;
private string_name ;
// for id property
public void SetID(int ID)
{
if(ID<=0)
{
throw new exception("student ID should be greater then 0");
}
this._ID = ID;
}
public int getID()
{
return_ID;
}
}
public class programme
{
public static void main()
{
student s1 = new student ();
s1.SetID(101);
}
// Like this we also can use for Name property
public void SetName(string Name)
{
if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(Name))
{
throw new exeception("name can not be null");
}
this._Name = Name;
}
public string GetName()
{
if( string.IsNullOrEmpty(This.Name))
{
return "No Name";
}
else
{
return this._name;
}
}
// Like this we also can use for Passmark property
public int Getpassmark()
{
return this._passmark;
}
}

Additional info:
By default, get and set accessors are as accessible as the property itself.
You can control/restrict accessor accessibility individually (for get and set) by applying more restrictive access modifiers on them.
Example:
public string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
protected set
{
name = value;
}
}
Here get is still publicly accessed (as the property is public), but set is protected (a more restricted access specifier).

Think about it : You have a room and a door to enter this room. If you want to check how who is coming in and secure your room, then you should use properties otherwise they won't be any door and every one easily come in w/o any regulation
class Room {
public string sectionOne;
public string sectionTwo;
}
Room r = new Room();
r.sectionOne = "enter";
People is getting in to sectionOne pretty easily, there wasn't any checking
class Room
{
private string sectionOne;
private string sectionTwo;
public string SectionOne
{
get
{
return sectionOne;
}
set
{
sectionOne = Check(value);
}
}
}
Room r = new Room();
r.SectionOne = "enter";
Now you checked the person and know about whether he has something evil with him

Fields are the variables in classes. Fields are the data which you can encapsulate through the use of access modifiers.
Properties are similar to Fields in that they define states and the data associated with an object.
Unlike a field a property has a special syntax that controls how a person reads the data and writes the data, these are known as the get and set operators. The set logic can often be used to do validation.

Properties are used to expose field. They use accessors(set, get) through which the values of the private fields can be read, written or manipulated.
Properties do not name the storage locations. Instead, they have accessors that read, write, or compute their values.
Using properties we can set validation on the type of data that is set on a field.
For example we have private integer field age on that we should allow positive values since age cannot be negative.
We can do this in two ways using getter and setters and using property.
Using Getter and Setter
// field
private int _age;
// setter
public void set(int age){
if (age <=0)
throw new Exception();
this._age = age;
}
// getter
public int get (){
return this._age;
}
Now using property we can do the same thing. In the value is a key word
private int _age;
public int Age{
get{
return this._age;
}
set{
if (value <= 0)
throw new Exception()
}
}
Auto Implemented property if we don't logic in get and set accessors we can use auto implemented property.
When use auto-implemented property compiles creates a private, anonymous field that can only be accessed through get and set accessors.
public int Age{get;set;}
Abstract Properties
An abstract class may have an abstract property, which should be implemented in the derived class
public abstract class Person
{
public abstract string Name
{
get;
set;
}
public abstract int Age
{
get;
set;
}
}
// overriden something like this
// Declare a Name property of type string:
public override string Name
{
get
{
return name;
}
set
{
name = value;
}
}
We can privately set a property
In this we can privately set the auto property(set with in the class)
public int MyProperty
{
get; private set;
}
You can achieve same with this code. In this property set feature is not available as we have to set value to field directly.
private int myProperty;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return myProperty; }
}

Should you use properties to initialize your fields in the constructor?

Pretty simple question really, should I use my properties to initialize fields in the constructor or reference them directly?
Example:
public class Foo()
{
private string example;
public String Example
{
get/set etc..
}
public Foo(string exampleIn)
{
Example = exampleIn;
}
}
Or is it better practice to do this:
public class Foo()
{
private string example;
public String Example
{
get/set etc..
}
public Foo(string exampleIn)
{
example = exampleIn;
}
}
Either way, I don't think either would violate encapsulation so I am wondering if there is a preferred way to go?

There is really no right or wrong answer here (and because of that I am almost tempted to vote to close). But, I tend to agree with Jacob on this. I prefer the property getter and setter route especially now that we have automatic properties. Do keep in mind that you can have different access modifies on the getters and setters in case that influences your decision for any reason. I mean, if you are going to use the property in the constructor then try to be consistent and use it exclusively everywhere else in the class as well. That may mean that you do not want to expose the setter to the outside.
public class Foo()
{
private string example;
public String Example
{
get { return example; }
private set { example = value; }
}
public Foo(string exampleIn)
{
Example = exampleIn;
}
}

Before automatic properties, which were introduced in C# 3.0, your second example is more "proper" in my opinion. Now with automatic properties I think this is best:
public class Foo()
{
private string example;
public String Example
{
{ get; set; }
}
public Foo(string exampleIn)
{
Example = exampleIn;
}
}

It depends on whether the data value will further be processed inside the Setter. IF the value needs processing then it's better to use what #Jacob has said but if the value will not be further processed (which is the case in most scenarios), it's better to use the private member to avoid an extra method call to setter method. When CLR compiles the code, it create two methods for Get and Set property and using the Property to access/modify the value which defines the property will result in extra method call unnecessarily (if the value is not processed further).

Getters, setters, and properties best practices. Java vs. C#

I'm taking a C# class right now and I'm trying to find out the best way of doing things. I come from a Java background and so I'm only familiar with Java best-practices; I'm a C# novice!
In Java if I have a private property, I do this;
private String name;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
In C#, I see that there are many ways of doing this.
I can do it like Java:
private string name;
public void setName(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
public string getName() {
return this.name;
}
Or I can do it this way:
private string name;
public string Name {
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}
Or:
public string Name { get; set; }
Which one should I use, and what are the caveats or subtleties involved with each approach? When creating classes, I am following general best-practices that I know from Java (especially reading Effective Java). So for example, I am favoring immutability (providing setters only when necessary). I'm just curious to see how these practices fit in with the various ways of providing setters and getters in C#; essentially, how would I translate best-practices from the Java world into C#?
EDIT
I was posting this as a comment to Jon Skeet's answer but then it got long:
What about a non-trivial property (i.e., with significant processing and validation perhaps)? Could I still expose it via a public property but with the logic encapsulated in get and set? Why would/should I do this over having dedicated setter and getter methods (with associated processing and validation logic).

Pre-C# 6
I'd use the last of these, for a trivial property. Note that I'd call this a public property as both the getters and setters are public.
Immutability is a bit of a pain with automatically implemented properties - you can't write an auto-property which only has a getter; the closest you can come is:
public string Foo { get; private set; }
which isn't really immutable... just immutable outside your class. So you may wish to use a real read-only property instead:
private readonly string foo;
public string Foo { get { return foo; } }
You definitely don't want to write getName() and setName(). In some cases it makes sense to write Get/Set methods rather than using properties, particularly if they could be expensive and you wish to emphasize that. However, you'd want to follow the .NET naming convention of PascalCase for methods, and you wouldn't want a trivial property like this to be implemented with normal methods anyway - a property is much more idiomatic here.
C# 6
Hooray, we finally have proper read-only automatically implemented properties:
// This can only be assigned to within the constructor
public string Foo { get; }
Likewise for read-only properties which do need to do some work, you can use member-bodied properties:
public double Area => height * width;

If all you need is a variable to store some data:
public string Name { get; set; }
Want to make it appear read-only?
public string Name { get; private set; }
Or even better...
private readonly string _name;
...
public string Name { get { return _name; } }
Want to do some value checking before assigning the property?
public string Name
{
get { return m_name; }
set
{
if (value == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("value");
m_name = value;
}
}
In general, the GetXyz() and SetXyz() are only used in certain cases, and you just have to use your gut on when it feels right. In general, I would say that I expect most get/set properties to not contain a lot of logic and have very few, if any, unexpected side effects. If reading a property value requires invoking a service or getting input from a user in order to build the object that I'm requesting, then I would wrap it into a method, and call it something like BuildXyz(), rather than GetXyz().

Use properties in C#, not get/set methods. They are there for your convenience and it is idiomatic.
As for your two C# examples, one is simply syntactic sugar for the other. Use the auto property if all you need is a simple wrapper around an instance variable, use the full version when you need to add logic in the getter and/or setter.

In C# favor properties for exposing private fields for get and/or set. The thie form you mention is an autoproperty where the get and set automatically generate a hidden pivot backing field for you.
I favor auto properties when possible but you should never do a set/get method pair in C#.

public string Name { get; set; }
This is simply a auto-implemented property, and is technically the same as a normal property. A backing field will be created when compiling.
All properties are eventually converted to functions, so the actual compiled implementation in the end is the same as you are used to in Java.
Use auto-implemented properties when you don't have to do specific operations on the backing field. Use a ordinary property otherwise. Use get and set functions when the operation has side effects or is computationally expensive, use properties otherwise.

Regardless of which way you choose in C# the end result is the same. You will get a backinng variable with separate getter and setter methods. By using properties you are following best practices and so it's a matter of how verbose you want to get.
Personally I would choose auto-properties, the last version: public string Name { get; set; }, since they take up the least amount of space. And you can always expand these in the future if you need add something like validation.

Whenever possible I prefer public string Name { get; set; } as it's terse and easily readable. However, there may be times when this one is necessary
private string name;
public string Name {
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}

In C# the preferred way is through properties rather than getX() and setX() methods. Also, note that C# does not require that properties have both a get and a set - you can have get-only properties and set-only properties.
public boolean MyProperty
{
get { return something; }
}
public boolean MyProperty
{
set { this.something = value; }
}

First let me try to explain what you wrote:
// private member -- not a property
private string name;
/// public method -- not a property
public void setName(string name) {
this.name = name;
}
/// public method -- not a property
public string getName() {
return this.name;
}
// yes it is property structure before .Net 3.0
private string name;
public string Name {
get { return name; }
set { name = value; }
}
This structure is also used nowadays but it is most suitable if you want to do some extra functionality, for instance when a value is set you can it to parse to capitalize it and save it in private member for alter internal use.
With .net framework 3.0
// this style is introduced, which is more common, and suppose to be best
public string Name { get; set; }
//You can more customize it
public string Name
{
get;
private set; // means value could be set internally, and accessed through out
}
Wish you better luck in C#

As mentioned, all of these approaches result in the same outcome. The most important thing is that you pick a convention and stick with it. I prefer using the last two property examples.

like most of the answers here, use Automatic properties. Intuitive, less lines of code and it is more clean. If you should serialize your class, mark the class [Serializable]/ with [DataConract] attribute. And if you are using [DataContract] mark the member with
[DataMember(Name="aMoreFriendlyName")]
public string Name { get; set; }
Private or public setter depends on your preference.
Also note that automatic properties require both getters and setters(public or private).
/*this is invalid*/
public string Name
{
get;
/* setter omitted to prove the point*/
}
Alternatively, if you only want get/set, create a backing field yourself

Which one should I use, and what are the caveats or subtleties involved with each approach?
When going with properties there is one caveat that has not been mentioned yet: With properties you cannot have any parametrization of your getters or setters.
For example imagine you want to retrieve a list items and want to also apply a filter at the same time. With a get-method you could write something like:
obj.getItems(filter);
In contrast, with a property you are forced to first return all items
obj.items
and then apply the filter in the next step or you have to add dedicated properties that expose items filtered by different criteria, which soon bloats your API:
obj.itemsFilteredByX
obj.itemsFilteredByY
What sometimes can be a nuisance is when you started with a property, e.g. obj.items and then later discovered that getter- or setter-parametrization is needed or would make things easier for the class-API user. You would now need to either rewrite your API and modify all those places in your code that access this property or find an alternative solution. In contrast, with a get-method, e.g. obj.getItems(), you can simply extend your method's signature to accept an optional "configuration" object e.g. obj.getItems(options) without having to rewrite all those places that call your method.
That being said, (auto-implemented) properties in C# are still very useful shortcuts (for the various reasons mentioned here) since most of the time parametrization may not be needed – but this caveat stands.

More private than private? (C#)

Sometimes you have a private field that backs a property, you only ever want to set the field via the property setter so that additional processing can be done whenever the field changes. The problem is that it's still easy to accidentally bypass the property setter from within other methods of the same class and not notice that you've done so. Is there a way in C# to work around this or a general design principle to avoid it?

IMHO, it is not used, because:
The class must trust itself
If your class gets as large that one part does not know the other, it should be divided.
If the logic behind the property is slightly more complex, consider to encapsulate it in an own type.

I'd consider this a nasty hack and try to avoid it if possible, but...
You can mark the backing field as obsolete so that the compiler will generate a warning when you try to access it, and then suppress that warning for the property getter/setter.
The warning codes that you'd need to suppress are CS0612 for the plain Obsolete attribute and CS0618 if the attribute has a custom message.
[Obsolete("Please don't touch the backing field!")]
private int _backingField;
public int YourProperty
{
#pragma warning disable 612, 618
get { return _backingField; }
set { _backingField = value; }
#pragma warning restore 612, 618
}

There's no inbuilt way to do what you want to do, but by the sounds of things you need another layer of abstraction between your class and that value.
Create a separate class and put the item in there, then your outer class contains the new class, and you can only access it through its properties.

No, there isn't. I'd quite like this myself - something along the lines of:
public string Name
{
private string name; // Only accessible within the property
get { return name; /* Extra processing here */ }
set { name = value; /* Extra processing here */ }
}
I think I first suggested this about 5 years ago on the C# newsgroups... I don't expect to ever see it happen though.
There are various wrinkles to consider around serialization etc, but I still think it would be nice. I'd rather have automatically implemented readonly properties first though...

You CAN do this, by using a closure over a local in the constructor (or other initialisation function). But it requires significantly more work that the helper class approach.
class MyClass {
private Func<Foo> reallyPrivateFieldGetter;
private Action<Foo> reallyPrivateFieldSetter;
private Foo ReallyPrivateBackingFieldProperty {
get { return reallyPrivateFieldGetter(); }
set { reallyPrivateFieldSetter(value); }
}
public MyClass() {
Foo reallyPrivateField = 0;
reallyPrivateFieldGetter = () => { return reallyPrivateField; }
reallyPrivateFieldSetter = v => { reallyPrivateField = v; };
}
}
I suspect that the underlying field type Foo will need to be a reference class, so the two closures are created over the same object.

There is no such provisioning in C#.
However I would name private variables differently (e.g. m_something or just _something) so it is easier to spot it when it is used.

You can put all of your private fields into a nested class and expose them via public properties. Then within your class, you instantiate that nested class and use it. This way those private fields are not accessible as they would have been if they were part of your main class.
public class A
{
class FieldsForA
{
private int number;
public int Number
{
get
{
//TODO: Extra logic.
return number;
}
set
{
//TODO: Extra logic.
number = value;
}
}
}
FieldsForA fields = new FieldsForA();
public int Number
{
get{ return fields.Number;}
set{ fields.Number = value;}
}
}
It just provides a level of obstruction. The underlying problem of accessing private backing fields is still there within the nested class. However, the code within class A can't access those private fields of nested class FieldForA. It has to go through the public properties.

Perhaps a property backing store, similar to the way WPF stores properties?
So, you could have:
Dictionary<string,object> mPropertyBackingStore = new Dictionary<string,object> ();
public PropertyThing MyPropertyThing
{
get { return mPropertyBackingStore["MyPropertyThing"] as PropertyThing; }
set { mPropertyBackingStore["MyPropertyThing"] = value; }
}
You can do all the pre-processing you want now, safe in the knowledge that if anyone did access the variable directly, it would have been really really hard compared to the property accessor.
P.S. You may even be able to use the dependency property infrastructure from WPF...
P.P.S. This is obviously going to incur the cost of casting, but it depends on your needs - if performance is critical, perhaps this isn't the solution for you.
P.P.P.S Don't forget to initialise the backing store! (;
EDIT:
In fact, if you change the value property stored to a property storage object (using the Command pattern for example), you could do your processing in the command object...just a thought.

Can't do this in standard C#, however you could
define a custom attribute say OnlyAccessFromProperty
write your code like
[OnlyAccessFromProperty(Name)]
String name
Name
{
get{return name;}
}
etc …
Then write a custom rule for FxCop (or another checker)
Add FxCop to your build system so if your custom rule find an error the build is failed.
Do we need a set of standard custom rules/attributes to enforce common design patens like this without the need to extend C#

C# has no language feature for this. However, you can rely on naming conventions, similar to languages which have no private properties at all. Prefix your more private variable names with _p_, and you'll be pretty sure that you don't type it accidentally.

I don't know C# but in Java you may have a base class with only private instance variables and public setters and getters (should return a copy of the instance var.) and do all other in an inherited class.
A "general design principle" would be "use inheritance".

There is no build in solution in C#, but I think your problem can be solved by good OO design:
Each class should have a single purpose. So try to extract the logic around your field into a class as small as possible. This reduces the code where you can access the field by accident. If you do such errors by accident, your class is probably to big.
Often interface are good to restrict access to only a certain "subset" of an object. If that's appropriate for your case depends on your setting of course. More details about the work to be done would help to provide a better answer.

You say that you do additional processing. Presumably this would be detectable under the correct conditions. My solution, then, would be to create unit tests that implement conditions such that if the backing field is used directly the test will fail. Using these tests you should be able to ensure that your code correctly uses the property interface as long as the tests pass.
This has the benefit that you don't need to compromise your design. You get the safety of the unit tests to ensure that you don't accidently make breaking changes and you capture the understanding of how the class works so that others who come along later can read your tests as "documentation."

Wrap it in a class? The property thing is a bit like that anyway, associating data with methods - the "Encapsulation" they used to rave about...
class MyInt
{
private int n;
public static implicit operator MyInt(int v) // Set
{
MyInt tmp = new MyInt();
tmp.n = v;
return tmp;
}
public static implicit operator int(MyInt v) // Get
{
return v.n;
}
}
class MyClass
{
private MyInt myint;
public void func()
{
myint = 5;
myint.n = 2; // Can't do this.
myint = myint + 5 * 4; // Works just like an int.
}
}
I'm sure I'm missing something? It seems too normal...
BTW I do like the closures one, superbly mad.

My favorite solution to this (and what I follow) is to name private backing fields that are never intended to be used directly with a leading underscore, and private fields that are intended to be used without the underscore (but still lowercase).
I hate typing the underscore, so if I ever start to access a variable that starts with the underscore, I know somethings wrong - I'm not supposed to be directly accessing that variable. Obviously, this approach still doesn't ultimately stop you from accessing that field, but as you can see from the other answers, any approach that does is a work around and/or hardly practical.
Another benefit of using the underscore notation is that when you use the dropdown box to browse your class, it puts all of your private, never-to-be-used backing fields all in one place at the top of the list, instead of allowing them to be mixed in with their respective properties.

As a design practice, you could use a naming convention for "private properties" that's different from normal public members - for instance, using m_ItemName for private items instead of ItemName for public ones.

If you're using the C# 3.0 compiler you can define properties which have compiler-generated backing fields like this:
public int MyInt { get; set; }
That will mean there is only one way to access the property, sure it doesn't mean you can only access the field but it does mean that there's nothing but the property to access.

I agree with the general rule that the class should trust itself (and by inference anybody coding within the class).
It is a shame that the field is exposed via intellisense.
Sadly placing [EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)] does not work within that class (or indeed the assembly(1))
In Visual C#, EditorBrowsableAttribute does not suppress members from a class in the same assembly.
If you really do wish to solve this aspect of it the the following class may be useful and makes the intent clear as well.
public sealed class TriggerField<T>
{
private T data;
///<summary>raised *after* the value changes, (old, new)</summary>
public event Action<T,T> OnSet;
public TriggerField() { }
///<summary>the initial value does NOT trigger the onSet</summary>
public TriggerField(T initial) { this.data=initial; }
public TriggerField(Action<T,T> onSet) { this.OnSet += onSet; }
///<summary>the initial value does NOT trigger the onSet</summary>
public TriggerField(Action<T,T> onSet, T initial) : this(onSet)
{
this.data=initial;
}
public T Value
{
get { return this.data;}
set
{
var old = this.data;
this.data = value;
if (this.OnSet != null)
this.OnSet(old, value);
}
}
}
Allowing you to (somewhat verbosely) use it like so:
public class Foo
{
private readonly TriggerField<string> flibble = new TriggerField<string>();
private int versionCount = 0;
public Foo()
{
flibble.OnSet += (old,current) => this.versionCount++;
}
public string Flibble
{
get { return this.flibble.Value; }
set { this.flibble.Value = value; }
}
}
alternatively you can go for a less verbose option but accessing Flibble is by the not idiomatic bar.Flibble.Value = "x"; which would be problematic in reflective scenarios
public class Bar
{
public readonly TriggerField<string> Flibble;
private int versionCount = 0;
public Bar()
{
Flibble = new TriggerField<string>((old,current) => this.versionCount++);
}
}
or solution if you look at the community content!

The new Lazy class in .net 4.0
provides support for several common
patterns of lazy initialization
In my experience this is the most common reason I wish to wrap a field in a private properly, so solves a common case nicely. (If you are not using .Net 4 yet you can just create your own “Lazy” class with the same API as the .Net 4 version.)
See this and this and this for details of using the Lazy class.

Use the "veryprivate" construct type
Example:
veryprivate void YourMethod()
{
// code here
}

Should I use public properties and private fields or public fields for data?

In much of the code I have seen (on SO, thecodeproject.com and I tend to do this in my own code), I have seen public properties being created for every single private field that a class contains, even if they are the most basic type of get; set; like:
private int myInt;
public int MyInt
{
get { return myInt; }
set { myInt = value }
}
My question is: how does this differ from:
public int MyInt;
and if we should use properties instead of public fields why should we use them in this specific case? (I am not talking about more complex examples where the getters and setters actually do something special or there is only one get or set (read/write only) rather than just returning/setting a value of a private field). It does not seem to add any extra encapsulation, only give a nice icon in IntelliSense and be placed in a special section in class diagrams!

See this article http://blog.codinghorror.com/properties-vs-public-variables/
Specifically
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.

Three reasons:
You cannot override fields in subclasses like you can properties.
You may eventually need a more complex getter or setter, but if it's a field, changing it would break the API.
Convention. That's just the way it's done.
I'm sure there are more reasons that I'm just not thinking of.
In .Net 3.x you can use automatic properties like this:
public int Age { get; set; }
instead of the old school way with declaring your private fields yourself like this:
private int age;
public int Age
{
get { return age; }
set { age = value; }
}
This makes it as simple as creating a field, but without the breaking change issue (among other things).

When you create private field name and a simple public property Name that actually gets and sets the name field value
public string Name
{
get { return name; }
}
and you use this property everywhere outside your class and some day you decide that the Name property of this class will actually refer to the lastName field (or that you want to return a string "My name: "+name), you simply change the code inside the property:
public string Name
{
get { return lastName; //return "My name: "+name; }
}
If you were using public field name everywhere in the outside code then you would have to change name to lastName everywhere you used it.

Well it does make a difference. Public data can be changed without the object instance knowing about it. Using getters and setters the object is always aware that a change has been made.
Remember that encapsulating the data is only the first step towards a better structured design, it's not an end-goal in itself.

You have to use properties in the following cases:
When you need to serialize data in the property to some format.
When you need to override properties in derived class.
When you implement get and set methods with some logic. For example, when you implement Singleton pattern.
When you're derived from interface, where property was declared.
When you have specific issues related to Reflection.

It... depends?
I always use getters & setters, since they created this shortcut:
public int Foo { get; set; }
At compile time it is translated. Now you can't get fancy with it, but it is there, and if you need to get fancy you just spell it out later.
However public, private, protected... it's all a matter of who you want to be able to tweak the data. We use inheritance a lot and this is a very common method for us, so that only chidren can edit certain properties.
protected _foo;
public Foo
{
get { return _foo; }
} //lack of set intentional.

I can't believe that with 11 answers, nobody has said this:
Not all private fields should be exposed as public properties. You should certainly use properties for anything that needs to be non-private, but you should keep as much of your class private as possible.

There are many reasons why.
Mainly:
You can do some other functions when the variable is set
You can prevent setting and provide only get
Some 'things' only work on properties (DataBinding, for example)
You can hide the implementation of the property [perhaps it is a ViewState variable, in ASP.NET).

The point is - what if further down the line you want to make sure that every time myInt is referenced something special happens (a log file is written to, it's changed to 42 etc)? You can't do that without getters and setters. Sometimes it's wise to program for what you might need, not what you need right now.

Actually, if you're using Silverlight, you'll realise that fields cannot be set a static resources and thus you'll have to use a property (even to access a const).
I've realised that when I tried to federate the region names I use in Composite Guidance (PRISM).
However, that's just a language limitations and apart from static/const fields I alsways use properties.

The idea is you should not accidentally/unintentionally change the value of a class private field outside.
When you use get and set, that means you are changing the class private field intentionally and knowingly.

Setting a value into a private field only changes that field,but making them in property you can handle another arguments for example,you can call a method after setting a value
private string _email;
public string Email
{
get
{
return this._email;
}
set
{
this._email = value;
ReplaceList(); //**
}
}

In simpler words, answer to your question is the access modifiers i.e. public and private.
If you use:
public int myInt;
public int MyInt
{
get { return myInt; }
set { myInt = value }
}
then both MyInt property and myInt variable is available in the project to be modified.
Means, if your class suppose A is inherited by class suppose B,
then myInt and MyInt both are available for modification and no check can be applied.
Suppose you want myInt value can be set in derive class if some particular condition pass.
This can be achieved only by making field private and property to be public.
So that only property is available and conditions can be set based on that.

Develop Reference

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.