Develop Reference

Good or bad practice? Initializing objects in getter

I have a strange habit it seems... according to my co-worker at least. We've been working on a small project together. The way I wrote the classes is (simplified example):
[Serializable()]
public class Foo
{
public Foo()
{ }
private Bar _bar;
public Bar Bar
{
get
{
if (_bar == null)
_bar = new Bar();
return _bar;
}
set { _bar = value; }
}
}
So, basically, I only initialize any field when a getter is called and the field is still null. I figured this would reduce overload by not initializing any properties that aren't used anywhere.
ETA: The reason I did this is that my class has several properties that return an instance of another class, which in turn also have properties with yet more classes, and so on. Calling the constructor for the top class would subsequently call all constructors for all these classes, when they are not always all needed.
Are there any objections against this practice, other than personal preference?
UPDATE: I have considered the many differing opinions in regards to this question and I will stand by my accepted answer. However, I have now come to a much better understanding of the concept and I'm able to decide when to use it and when not.
Cons:
Thread safety issues
Not obeying a "setter" request when the value passed is null
Micro-optimizations
Exception handling should take place in a constructor
Need to check for null in class' code
Pros:
Micro-optimizations
Properties never return null
Delay or avoid loading "heavy" objects
Most of the cons are not applicable to my current library, however I would have to test to see if the "micro-optimizations" are actually optimizing anything at all.
LAST UPDATE:
Okay, I changed my answer. My original question was whether or not this is a good habit. And I'm now convinced that it's not. Maybe I will still use it in some parts of my current code, but not unconditionally and definitely not all the time. So I'm going to lose my habit and think about it before using it. Thanks everyone!

What you have here is a - naive - implementation of "lazy initialization".
Short answer:
Using lazy initialization unconditionally is not a good idea. It has its places but one has to take into consideration the impacts this solution has.
Background and explanation:
Concrete implementation:
Let's first look at your concrete sample and why I consider its implementation naive:
It violates the Principle of Least Surprise (POLS). When a value is assigned to a property, it is expected that this value is returned. In your implementation this is not the case for null:
foo.Bar = null;
Assert.Null(foo.Bar); // This will fail
It introduces quite some threading issues: Two callers of foo.Bar on different threads can potentially get two different instances of Bar and one of them will be without a connection to the Foo instance. Any changes made to that Bar instance are silently lost.
This is another case of a violation of POLS. When only the stored value of a property is accessed it is expected to be thread-safe. While you could argue that the class simply isn't thread-safe - including the getter of your property - you would have to document this properly as that's not the normal case. Furthermore the introduction of this issue is unnecessary as we will see shortly.
In general:
It's now time to look at lazy initialization in general:
Lazy initialization is usually used to delay the construction of objects that take a long time to be constructed or that take a lot of memory once fully constructed.
That is a very valid reason for using lazy initialization.
However, such properties normally don't have setters, which gets rid of the first issue pointed out above.
Furthermore, a thread-safe implementation would be used - like Lazy<T> - to avoid the second issue.
Even when considering these two points in the implementation of a lazy property, the following points are general problems of this pattern:
Construction of the object could be unsuccessful, resulting in an exception from a property getter. This is yet another violation of POLS and therefore should be avoided. Even the section on properties in the "Design Guidelines for Developing Class Libraries" explicitly states that property getters shouldn't throw exceptions:
Avoid throwing exceptions from property getters.
Property getters should be simple operations without any preconditions. If a getter might throw an exception, consider redesigning the property to be a method.
Automatic optimizations by the compiler are hurt, namely inlining and branch prediction. Please see Bill K's answer for a detailed explanation.
The conclusion of these points is the following:
For each single property that is implemented lazily, you should have considered these points.
That means, that it is a per-case decision and can't be taken as a general best practice.
This pattern has its place, but it is not a general best practice when implementing classes. It should not be used unconditionally, because of the reasons stated above.
In this section I want to discuss some of the points others have brought forward as arguments for using lazy initialization unconditionally:
Serialization:
EricJ states in one comment:
An object that may be serialized will not have it's contructor invoked when it is deserialized (depends on the serializer, but many common ones behave like this). Putting initialization code in the constructor means that you have to provide additional support for deserialization. This pattern avoids that special coding.
There are several problems with this argument:
Most objects never will be serialized. Adding some sort of support for it when it is not needed violates YAGNI.
When a class needs to support serialization there exist ways to enable it without a workaround that doesn't have anything to do with serialization at first glance.
Micro-optimization:
Your main argument is that you want to construct the objects only when someone actually accesses them. So you are actually talking about optimizing the memory usage.
I don't agree with this argument for the following reasons:
In most cases, a few more objects in memory have no impact whatsoever on anything. Modern computers have way enough memory. Without a case of actual problems confirmed by a profiler, this is pre-mature optimization and there are good reasons against it.
I acknowledge the fact that sometimes this kind of optimization is justified. But even in these cases lazy initialization doesn't seem to be the correct solution. There are two reasons speaking against it:
Lazy initialization potentially hurts performance. Maybe only marginally, but as Bill's answer showed, the impact is greater than one might think at first glance. So this approach basically trades performance versus memory.
If you have a design where it is a common use case to use only parts of the class, this hints at a problem with the design itself: The class in question most likely has more than one responsibility. The solution would be to split the class into several more focused classes.

It is a good design choice. Strongly recommended for library code or core classes.
It is called by some "lazy initialization" or "delayed initialization" and it is generally considered by all to be a good design choice.
First, if you initialize in the declaration of class level variables or constructor, then when your object is constructed, you have the overhead of creating a resource that may never be used.
Second, the resource only gets created if needed.
Third, you avoid garbage collecting an object that was not used.
Lastly, it is easier to handle initialization exceptions that may occur in the property then exceptions that occur during initialization of class level variables or the constructor.
There are exceptions to this rule.
Regarding the performance argument of the additional check for initialization in the "get" property, it is insignificant. Initializing and disposing an object is a more significant performance hit than a simple null pointer check with a jump.
Design Guidelines for Developing Class Libraries at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/vstudio/ms229042.aspx
Regarding Lazy<T>
The generic Lazy<T> class was created exactly for what the poster wants, see Lazy Initialization at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997286(v=vs.100).aspx. If you have older versions of .NET, you have to use the code pattern illustrated in the question. This code pattern has become so common that Microsoft saw fit to include a class in the latest .NET libraries to make it easier to implement the pattern. In addition, if your implementation needs thread safety, then you have to add it.
Primitive Data Types and Simple Classes
Obvioulsy, you are not going to use lazy-initialization for primitive data type or simple class use like List<string>.
Before Commenting about Lazy
Lazy<T> was introduced in .NET 4.0, so please don't add yet another comment regarding this class.
Before Commenting about Micro-Optimizations
When you are building libraries, you must consider all optimizations. For instance, in the .NET classes you will see bit arrays used for Boolean class variables throughout the code to reduce memory consumption and memory fragmentation, just to name two "micro-optimizations".
Regarding User-Interfaces
You are not going to use lazy initialization for classes that are directly used by the user-interface. Last week I spent the better part of a day removing lazy loading of eight collections used in a view-model for combo-boxes. I have a LookupManager that handles lazy loading and caching of collections needed by any user-interface element.
"Setters"
I have never used a set-property ("setters") for any lazy loaded property. Therefore, you would never allow foo.Bar = null;. If you need to set Bar then I would create a method called SetBar(Bar value) and not use lazy-initialization
Collections
Class collection properties are always initialized when declared because they should never be null.
Complex Classes
Let me repeat this differently, you use lazy-initialization for complex classes. Which are usually, poorly designed classes.
Lastly
I never said to do this for all classes or in all cases. It is a bad habit.

Do you consider implementing such pattern using Lazy<T>?
In addition to easy creation of lazy-loaded objects, you get thread safety while the object is initialized:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd642331.aspx
As others said, you lazily-load objects if they're really resource-heavy or it takes some time to load them during object construction-time.

I think it depends on what you are initialising. I probably wouldn't do it for a list as the construction cost is quite small, so it can go in the constructor. But if it was a pre-populated list then I probably wouldn't until it was needed for the first time.
Basically, if the cost of construction outweighs the cost of doing an conditional check on each access then lazy create it. If not, do it in the constructor.

Lazy instantiation/initialization is a perfectly viable pattern. Keep in mind, though, that as a general rule consumers of your API do not expect getters and setters to take discernable time from the end user POV (or to fail).

The downside that I can see is that if you want to ask if Bars is null, it would never be, and you would be creating the list there.

I was just going to put a comment on Daniel's answer but I honestly don't think it goes far enough.
Although this is a very good pattern to use in certain situations (for instance, when the object is initialized from the database), it's a HORRIBLE habit to get into.
One of the best things about an object is that it offeres a secure, trusted environment. The very best case is if you make as many fields as possible "Final", filling them all in with the constructor. This makes your class quite bulletproof. Allowing fields to be changed through setters is a little less so, but not terrible. For instance:
class SafeClass
{
String name="";
Integer age=0;
public void setName(String newName)
{
assert(newName != null)
name=newName;
}// follow this pattern for age
...
public String toString() {
String s="Safe Class has name:"+name+" and age:"+age
}
}
With your pattern, the toString method would look like this:
if(name == null)
throw new IllegalStateException("SafeClass got into an illegal state! name is null")
if(age == null)
throw new IllegalStateException("SafeClass got into an illegal state! age is null")
public String toString() {
String s="Safe Class has name:"+name+" and age:"+age
}
Not only this, but you need null checks everywhere you might possibly use that object in your class (Outside your class is safe because of the null check in the getter, but you should be mostly using your classes members inside the class)
Also your class is perpetually in an uncertain state--for instance if you decided to make that class a hibernate class by adding a few annotations, how would you do it?
If you make any decision based on some micro-optomization without requirements and testing, it's almost certainly the wrong decision. In fact, there is a really really good chance that your pattern is actually slowing down the system even under the most ideal of circumstances because the if statement can cause a branch prediction failure on the CPU which will slow things down many many many more times than just assigning a value in the constructor unless the object you are creating is fairly complex or coming from a remote data source.
For an example of the brance prediction problem (which you are incurring repeatedly, nost just once), see the first answer to this awesome question: Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?

Let me just add one more point to many good points made by others...
The debugger will (by default) evaluate the properties when stepping through the code, which could potentially instantiate the Bar sooner than would normally happen by just executing the code. In other words, the mere act of debugging is changing the execution of the program.
This may or may not be a problem (depending on side-effects), but is something to be aware of.

Are you sure Foo should be instantiating anything at all?
To me it seems smelly (though not necessarily wrong) to let Foo instantiate anything at all. Unless it is Foo's express purpose to be a factory, it should not instantiate it's own collaborators, but instead get them injected in its constructor.
If however Foo's purpose of being is to create instances of type Bar, then I don't see anything wrong with doing it lazily.

"Getters should not include large amounts of logic." True or false?

I tend to assume that getters are little more than an access control wrapper around an otherwise fairly lightweight set of instructions to return a value (or set of values).
As a result, when I find myself writing longer and more CPU-hungry setters, I feel Perhaps this is not the smartest move. In calling a getter in my own code (in particular let's refer to C# where there is a syntactical difference between method vs. getter calls), then I make an implicit assumption that these are lightweight -- when in fact that may well not be the case.
What's the general consensus on this? Use of other people's libraries aside, do you write heavy getters? Or do you tend to treat heavier getters as "full methods"?
PS. Due to language differences, I expect there'll be quite a number of different thoughts on this...

Property getters are intended to retrieve a value. So when developers call them, there is an expectation that the call will return (almost) immediately with a value. If that expectation cannot be met, it is better to use a method instead of a property.

From MSDN:
Property Usage Guidelines
Use a method when:
[...]
The operation is expensive enough that you want to communicate to the
user that they should consider caching
the result.the result.
And also:
Choosing Between Properties and Methods
Do use a method, rather than a
property, in the following situations.
The operation is orders of magnitude slower than a field set would be. If
you are even considering providing an
asynchronous version of an operation
to avoid blocking the thread, it is
very likely that the operation is too
expensive to be a property. In
particular, operations that access the
network or the file system (other than
once for initialization) should most
likely be methods, not properties.

True. Getters should either access a simple member, or should compute and cache a derived value and then return the cached value (subsequent gets without interleaved sets should merely return that value). If I have a function that is going to do a lot of computation, then I name it computeX, not getX.

All in all, very few of my methods are so expensive in terms of time that it would matter based on the guidelines as posted by Thomas. But the thing is that generally calls to a getter should not affect that state of the class. I have no problem writing a getter that actually runs a calculation when called though.

In general, I write short, efficient ones. But you might have complex ones -- you need to consider how the getter will be used. And if it is an external API, you don't have any control how it is used - so shoot for efficiency.

I would agree with this. It is useful to have calculated properties for example for things like Age based on DateOfBirth. But I would avoid complex logic like having to go to a database just to calculate the value of an object's property. Use method in that case.

My opinion is that getter should be lightweight, but again as you say there is a broad definition of "lightweight", adding a logger is fine for tracing purpose, and probably some cache logic too and database/web service retrieval .. ouch. your getter is already considered heavy.
Getter are syntaxic sugar like setters, I consider that method are more flexible because of the simplicity of using them asynchronously.
But there is no expectation set for your getter performance (maybe try to mention it in the cough documentation ), as it could be trying to retrieve fresh values from slow source.
Others are certainly considering getter for simple objects, but as your object could be a proxy for your backend object, I really see not point too set performance expectations as it helps you makes the code more readable and more maintainable.
So my answer would be, "it depends", mainly on the level of abstraction of your object ( short logic for low level object as the value should probably be calculated on the setter level, long ones for hight level ).

Is it good form to expose derived values as properties?

I need to derive an important value given 7 potential inputs. Uncle Bob urges me to avoid functions with that many parameters, so I've extracted the class. All parameters now being properties, I'm left with a calculation method with no arguments.
“That”, I think, “could be a property, but I'm not sure if that's idiomatic C#.”
Should I expose the final result as a property, or as a method with no arguments? Would the average C# programmer find properties confusing or offensive? What about the Alt.Net crowd?
decimal consumption = calculator.GetConsumption(); // obviously derived
decimal consumption = calculator.Consumption; // not so obvious
If the latter: should I declare interim results as [private] properties, also? Thanks to heavy method extraction, I have several interim results. Many of these shouldn't be part of the public API. Some of them could be interesting, though, and my expressions would look cleaner if I could access them as properties:
decimal interim2 = this.ImportantInterimValue * otherval;
Happy Experiment Dept.:
While debugging my code in VS2008, I noticed that I kept hovering my mouse over the method calls that compute interim results, expecting a hover-over with their return value. After turning all methods into properties, I found that exposing interim results as properties greatly assisted debugging. I'm well pleased with that, but have lingering concerns about readability.
The interim value declarations look messier. The expressions, however, are easier to read without the brackets. I no longer feel compelled to start the method name with a verb. To contrast:
// Clean method declaration; compulsive verby name; callers need
// parenthesis despite lack of any arguments.
decimal DetermineImportantInterimValue() {
return this.DetermineOtherInterimValue() * this.SomeProperty;
}
// Messier property declaration; clean name; clean access syntax
decimal ImportantInterimValue {
get {
return this.OtherInterimValue * this.SomeProperty;
}
}
I should perhaps explain that I've been coding in Python for a decade. I've been left with a tendency to spend extra time making my code easier to call than to write. I'm not sure the Python community would regard this property-oriented style as acceptably “Pythonic”, however:
def determineImportantInterimValue(self):
"The usual way of doing it."
return self.determineOtherInterimValue() * self.someAttribute
importantInterimValue = property(
lambda self => self.otherInterimValue * self.someAttribute,
doc = "I'm not sure if this is Pythonic...")

The important question here seems to be this:
Which one produces more legible, maintainable code for you in the long run?
In my personal opinion, isolating the individual calculations as properties has a couple of distinct advantages over a single monolothic method call:
You can see the calculations as they're performed in the debugger, regardless of the class method you're in. This is a boon to productivity while you're debugging the class.
If the calculations are discrete, the properties will execute very quickly, which means (in my opinion), they observe the rules for property design. It's absurd to think that a guideline for design should be treated as a straightjacket. Remember: There is no silver bullet.
If the calculations are marked private or internal, they do not add unnecessary complexity to consumers of the class.
If all of the properties are discrete enough, compiler inlining may resolve the performance issues for you.
Finally, if the final method that returns your final calculation is far and away easier to maintain and understand because you can read it, that is an utterly compelling argument in and of itself.
One of the best things you can do is think for yourself and dare to challenge the preconceived One Size Fits All notions of our peers and predecessors. There are exceptions to every rule. This case may very well be one of them.
Postscript:
I do not believe that we should abandon standard property design in the vast majority of cases. But there are cases where deviating from The Standard(TM) is called for, because it makes sense to do so.

Personally, I would prefer if you make your public API as a method instead of property. Properties are supposed to be as 'fast' as possible in C#. More details on this discussion: Properties vs Methods
Internally, GetConsumption can use any number of private properties to arrive at the result, choice is yours.

I usually go by what the method or property will do. If it is something that is going to take a little time, I'll use a method. If it's very quick or has a very small number of operations going on behind the scenes, I'll make it a property.

I use to use methods to denote any action on the object or which changes the state of an object. so, in this case I would name the function as CalculateConsumption() which computes the values from other properties.

You say you are deriving a value from seven inputs, you have implemented seven properties, one for each input, and you have a property getter for the result. Some things you might want to consider are:
What happens if the caller fails to set one or more of the seven "input" properties? Does the result still make sense? Will an exception be thrown (e.g. divide by zero)?
In some cases the API may be less discoverable. If I must call a method that takes seven parameters, I know that I must supply all seven parameters to get the result. And if some of the parameters are optional, different overloads of the method make it clear which ones.
In contrast, it may not be so clear that I have to set seven properties before accessing the "result" property, and could be easy to forget one.
When you have a method with several parameters, you can more easily have richer validation. For example, you could throw an ArgumentException if "parameter A and parameter B are both null".
If you use properties for your inputs, each property will be set independently, so you can't perform the validation when the inputs are being set - only when the result property is being dereferenced, which may be less intuitive.

Should you use accessor properties from within the class, or just from outside of the class? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What is the best way to access properties from the same class, via accessors or directly? [closed]
(5 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have a class 'Data' that uses a getter to access some array. If the array is null, then I want Data to access the file, fill up the array, and then return the specific value.
Now here's my question:
When creating getters and setters should you also use those same accessor properties as your way of accessing that array (in this case)? Or should you just access the array directly?
The problem I am having using the accessors from within the class is that I get infinite loops as the calling class looks for some info in Data.array, the getter finds the array null so goes to get it from the file, and that function ends up calling the getter again from within Data, array is once again null, and we're stuck in an infinite loop.
EDIT:
So is there no official stance on this? I see the wisdom in not using Accessors with file access in them, but some of you are saying to always use accessors from within a class, and others are saying to never use accessors from with the class............................................

I agree with krosenvold, and want to generalize his advice a bit:
Do not use Property getters and setters for expensive operations, like reading a file or accessing the network. Use explicit function calls for the expensive operations.
Generally, users of the class will not expect that a simple property retrieval or assignment may take a lot of time.
This is also recommended in Microsoft's Framework Design Guidelines.;
Do use a method, rather than a
property, in the following situations.
The operation is orders of magnitude
slower than a field set would be. If
you are even considering providing an
asynchronous version of an operation
to avoid blocking the thread, it is
very likely that the operation is too
expensive to be a property. In
particular, operations that access the
network or the file system (other than
once for initialization) should most
likely be methods, not properties.

I think its a good idea to always use the accessors. Then if you need any special logic when getting or setting the property, you know that everything is performing that logic.
Can you post the getter and setter for one of these properties? Maybe we can help debug it.

I have written a getter that opens a file and always regretted it later. Nowdays I would never solve that problem by lazy-constructing through the getter - period. There's the issue of getters with side-effects where people don't expect all kinds of crazy activity to be going on behind the getter. Furthermore you probably have to ensure thread safety, which can further pollute this code. Unit-Testing can also become slightly harder each time you do this.
Explicit construction is a much better solution than all sorts of lazy-init getters. It may be because I'm using DI frameworks that give me all of this as part of the standard usage patterns. I really try to treat construction logic as distinctly as possible and not hide too much, it makes code easier to understand.

No. I don't believe you should, the reason: maintainable code.
I've seen people use properties within the defining class and at first all looks well. Then someone else comes along and adds features to the properties, then someone else comes along and tries to change the class, they don't fully understand the class and all hell breaks loose.
It shouldn't because maintenance teams should fully understand what they are trying to change but they are often looking at a different problem or error and the encapsulated property often escapes them. I've see this a lot and so never use properties internally.
They can also be a performance hog, what should be a simple lookup can turn nasty if someone puts database code in the properties - and I have seen people do that too!
The KISS principle is still valid after all these years...!

Aside from the point made by others, whether to use an accessor or a field directly may need to be informed by semantics. Some times the semantics of an external consumer accessing a property is different from the mechanical necessity of accessing its value by internal code.
Eric Lippert recently blogged on this subject in a couple of posts:-
automatic-vs-explicit-properties
future-proofing-a-design

If using an Get method leads to this kind of error, you should access the value directly. Otherwise, it is good practice to use your accessors. If you should modify either the getter or setter to take specific actions in the future, you'll break your object if you fail to use that path.

I guess what you are trying to implement is some sort of a lazy-loading property, where you load the data only when it is accessed for the first time.
In such a case I would use the following approach to prevent the infinite loop:
private MyData _data = null;
public MyData Data
{
get
{
if (_data == null)
_data = LoadDataFromFile();
return _data;
}
}
private MyData LoadDataFromFile()
{
// ...
}
In other words:
don't implement a setter
always use the property to access the data (never use the field directly)

You should always use the accessors, but the function that reads the value from the file (which should be private, and called something like getValueFromFile) should only be called when the value has to be read from the file, and should just read the file and return the value(s). That function might even be better off in another class, dedicated to reading values from your data file.

If I am understanding it right, you are trying to access a property from within it's implementation (by using a method that calls the same property in the property's implementation code). I am not sure if there any official standards regarding this, but I would consider it a bad practice, unless there would be a specific need to do it.
I always prefer using private members within a class instead of properties, unless I need the functionality property implementation provides.

Convention question: When do you use a Getter/Setter function rather than using a Property

It strikes me that Properties in C# should be use when trying to manipulate a field in the class. But when there's complex calculations or database involved, we should use a getter/setter.
Is this correct?
When do you use s/getter over properties?

The .NET design guidelines provide some answers to this question in the Properties vs. Methods section.
Basically, properties have the same semantics as a field. You shouldn't let a property throw exceptions, properties shouldn't have side effects, order shouldn't matter, and properties should return relatively quickly. If any of those things could happen, it's better to use a method. The guidelines also recommend using methods for returning arrays.
When deciding whether to use a property or method, it helps if I think of it like a field. I think about the behavior of the property and ask myself, "If this were a field on the class, would I be surprised if it behaved the way it does?" Consider, for example, the TcpClient.GetStream method. It can throw several exceptions based on if the connection is made, and it's important that the TcpClient is configured before you try to get the stream. Because of this, it is a Get method rather than a property.
If you take a good look at the design guidelines, you'll see that it's usually not a matter of preference; there's good reasons to use methods instead of properties in certain cases.

If your language supports properties, just use properties.

Use the properties. One interesting note from MS's framework design guidelines book is that if you have a property and need to add extra methods for more complex set/get, then you should eliminate the property and go with only get/set methods.

This is all personal preference. When it gets compiled it turns out to be getter/setter functions either way.
I personally use properties when setting and retrieving member values without any side affects. If there are side affects to retrieving/saving the value, then I use a function.

I'd say always ask yourself which makes more sense. Methods tend to be understood as actions to perform and are usually worded as such — open(), flush(), parse(). Properties tend to be understood as fancier fields/variables — DisplayName, AutoSize, DataSource.
This tends to come up a lot with custom control development I've noticed. Since it has the potential of being used by many other people down the road who didn't write it and you might not be around to ask, best go with a design that makes logical sense and doesn't surprise your fellow developers.

I tend to use setters when a value is write-only or there are multiple values to be set at once (obviously). Also my instinct, like yours, is to use getters and setters as a signal that a process may be long-running, spawn threads, or do some other non-trivial work. Also, if a setter has non-obvious prerequisites in the class, I might use a getter or setter instead, since people rarely read documentation on properties, and properties are expected to be accessable at all times. But even in these circumstances I might use a property if it will potentially make the calling code read better.

Forget the Getter and Setter methods. Just use Properties.
An interesting thing to mention is that Properties are ending up as Setter and/or Getter method(s) in the assembly. Setter and/or Getter become a Property just by a little bit of metadata. So in fact, properties = setter/getter methods.

Properties should be fast, as they have a certain promise of just being there. They are also mandatory for databinding.
And they should have no side-effects.

Microsoft's answer is good, but I'd add a few more rules for read-write properties (which Microsoft violates sometimes, btw, causing much confusion): (1) A property setter should generally not affect the observable properties of objects which are not considered to be part of the object whose property is being set; (2) Setting a property to one value and then another should leave any affected objects in the same (observable) state as simply setting it to the second value; (3) Setting a property to the value returned by its getter should have no observable effect; (4) Generally, setting a property should not cause any other read-write properties to change, though it may change other read-only properties (note that most violations of this rule would violate #2 and/or #3, but even when those rules would not be violated such designs still seem dubious). Making an object usable in the designer may require giving it some properties which don't follow these rules, but run-time changes which will not follow such semantics should be done by setter methods.
In many cases, it may be appropriate to have a read-only property and a separate "Set" method (that would be my preference, for example, for a control's "Parent" property). In other cases, it may be useful to have several related ReadOnly properties that are affected by one read/write property (e.g. it may be useful to have a read-only property that indicates whether a control and all its parents are visible, but such functionality should not be included in a read-write Visible property).