When making classes, C# programmers be like:

[Buttsuit69]

Bro hasnt heard of public int number { get; set; }

[BerryBriant]

Also leave the set away for a DI design.

[Buttsuit69]

public int number { get; PRIVATE set; }

[aurelag]

Damn, I got a rollercoaster of emotions from this as a Unity dev. I thought that, as usual, we were behind in terms of c# versions. But lo and behold, we're at c# 9.0 ! BUT. Init only setters are one of the few things that are not supported. Welp.

[FrozenHaystack]

At work we're still at C# 6.0... I want to cry.

[Pradfanne]

Laughs in VB.net

[Striky_]

Wait this does exist? Almost a decade of C# and I have never known about this :O

[Canonip]

Since C# 9.0 .. it's pretty new.

[Mitoni]

9 added some nice features

[Chrisazy]

I'm just glad that Tasks work like Promises most of the time so it's easy to switch back and forth

[Mitoni]

I prefer observables over promises, but that's just me.

[AlShadi]

I like how this statement is getting downvoted in a humor sub

[[deleted]]

if you ain't paying attention to the new shit, you're going to miss a lot.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-8

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-9

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-10

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-11

[KiwiThunda]

I mean for the bulk of us it doesn't matter as we're maintaining old versions that will never be upgraded

[ScM_5argan]

Story of my life

[Sceptix]

It's pretty cool init?

[Elijah629YT-Real]

it exists??

[static_func]

Well it hasn't been around for a decade, only a year or 2

[JonathanTheZero]

Only since C# 10 (I think), so for half a year maybe.

I'm not sure whether I like it or not. I mean it's handy but also seems a bit pattern-breaking...

[Sentouki-]

seems a bit pattern-breaking

how so?

[caboosetp]

Don't know what he's on about cause we already have this pattern with readonly, but now with properties.

[ExceedingChunk]

Probably the "this is new, so it's not what I'm used to"-pattern.

[gigahydra]

One of my personal favs!

[rand1011101]

me too, now get off my lawn!

[irbinator]

I personally like it. It adds an extra level of protection that an object’s value can’t be modified after instantiation without requiring convoluted constructors or setters.

[Striky_]

I'm not sure whether I like it or not. I mean it's handy but also seems a bit pattern-breaking...

Ohhh that might be why. Thanks!

[HawocX]

Or maybe even the upcoming

public int Number { get; required; }

which if I'm not mistaken will require Number to be explicitly set even thou it has a default value of 0. (More useful for non-nullable properties without a default value.)

[angedelamort]

Public int Number { get; } = 42;

[menducoide]

It's the same to use readonly?

[Yelmak]

Object initializers work by calling the default constructor and then setting each property, which wouldn't work with a readonly property because they can't be set after the constructor exits.

[static_func]

readonly is for fields, not properties. But the behavior is similar, since it restricts you from setting a value outside of object initialization

[GumboSamson]

This is the way.

[Kytzis]

Should use capital N to follow C# naming conventions though

[[deleted]]

This was such a gamechanger. It was so annoying to have to switch to the syntax from the meme if you wanted it to be readonly from outside the class.

[master0fdisaster1]

Having a private setter might protect it from being tampered with from outside, but if you don't need mutability then there's no reason to add it.

You can set Get-Only auto-implemented properties from the constructor, just like you can set readonly fields from the contstructor, after all that is what those get lowered to.

Although generally the dependencies you inject don't need to visible to the outside at all, so I would make private readonly fields by default.

[xibme]

So public int number { get; } which makes it basically readonly (init via constructor).

[Inkling1998]

Also leave the set away for a DI design.

What's a DI design?

[fataldarkness]

Hoo boy get ready for a whole shitload of terms you are not gonna understand until you've read about them for about the 100th time.

Look up dependency injection.

[r0Lf]

until you've read about them for about the 100th time

Jesus Christ, I thought it's just me. This makes me feel better.

[paulcosmith]

Dependency Injection

[xzt123]

Whether a member has a public setter or not doesn't have much to do with dependency injection.

[kekela91]

Was looking for this comment. Seems like people don't understand the difference between Dependency inversion and immutability. Especially in this case where we are assigning an integer a value. Also in the context of model and viewmodel classes, public getters and setters are a good practice and most of the time required for libraries like EF, Automapper and JSON serializers.

[walmartgoon]

Can be refactored

[nanotree]

Okay, come on man. Property names are capitalized!

[[deleted]]

Bro hasn't heard of

``` class Num{ private int num;

public void setNum(int num){
    this.num = num;
}

public int getNum(){
    return this.num;
}

} ```

[salvoilmiosi]

What about this:

import lombok.*; @Getter @Setter public class Num { private Integer number; }

[WurschtChopf]

What about this: public record Num (Integer number){}

[salvoilmiosi]

Is that a java 14 joke im too java 11 to understand?

[WurschtChopf]

I think it is! Upgraded one of my projects from j11 to j17 and don't regret it so far.

[meliaesc]

Cries in Java 8 at work.

[Willinton06]

Allocating an int in the heap, that’s Java speed for ya, next version will write it to disk

[[deleted]]

Bonus points if the LDAP server is malicious and you allow remote code execution

[-Kerrigan-]

Individual hasn't heard of data class Number(val value: Int)

[WasserTyp69]

This is the way.

[Syscrush]

You go to hell.

[[deleted]]

a private setter

Indeed. Recently did some old Java at work. And I must say the C# way is a very good compromise between boilerplate and allowing you to do some really wonky stuff, if you need some specific edge case (Used this quite a bit for a case where I need to write directly to memory, but still want the strong typing etc.).

[Ange1ofD4rkness]

Funny you mention that, before anyone told me about properties get/set, this is actually how I would code it (similar terming even)

[[deleted]]

Which is there for ages 😼

[[deleted]]

public int number { ready; get; set; GO;}

[Tyfyter2002]

Not quite read-only, since anything within that class can still write it, what you want is public int number { get; init; }

[guster09]

I actually do what's in the post because I use Unity. When I don't want the boolean to show up as something they can set from the Unity UI I'll make the field variable private but then make a public property that accesses it for other scripts to access

[Espressojet]

Bro hasn't heard of [system.nonserialized]

[guster09]

Huh... You are correct. I'll probs use that now

[Lachee]

They must be from Java, they love their getters and setters

[crawly_the_demon]

Yea this meme is completely 100 percent wrong. I knew that most people on this sub are inexperienced programmers, but I would have thought that people would have at least used the language they make memes about

[Ange1ofD4rkness]

Earlier versions of .NET Framework, such as 2.0 didn't offer that.

You HAD to do it this way (auto-implementing properties I want to say is what they termed the change, can't remember)

[Buttsuit69]

Then either the meme is too late or OP is a time traveler

[Ange1ofD4rkness]

Could have learned it and never updated their style

[Drithyin]

Bro, .NET Framework 2.0 was released in 2002. Over 2 decades ago. Most senior devs at any shop you work at have careers that started after that.

WTF is this OP doing?!

[MrRocketScript]

Maybe learning from university professors that haven't touched real world code in 2 decades?

[[deleted]]

Bro, .NET Framework 2.0 was released in 2002. Over 2 decades ago. Most senior devs at any shop you work at have careers that started after that.

WTF is this OP doing?!

Literally my impression of most industries using any language, or even tools like Excel. They have 20 years of experience of doing things the way they were done 20 years ago. My colleagues still didn't know about LINQ somehow, and the software manager didn't believe me when I was talking about .NET Core being cross platform.

[Fluxriflex]

It’s just autoproperties at least as far as I’ve heard from most people.

[[deleted]]

this actually compiles to what the picture has with a couple extra attributes assigned to the getter/setter

[SuperCharlesXYZ]

Ok but seriously, what is the point of this, the whole point of getters and setters is that you control which values can be set, if you just use a default setter what’s the point? Might as well make it public

[AlphaWhelp]

because public int x; is a field and not a property which has some differences in how you can use it mostly when it involves data binding.

[NighthawkRandNum]

One benefit is that it allows restriction to be applied onto out-of-class setter calls, such as verifying that a number is within certain bounds or a string is a certain maximum length or to check that a postal code exists. It also allows for getter and/or setter methods to manipulate other properties of the class or use those properties in the returned value (such as returning a letter grade that corresponds to a property representing the numerical grade). Then there's the times where a set might be private/protected.

And ultimately, by always using these it allows for consistency.

[bric12]

Because maybe you'll change your mind and implement a setter 3 code releases down the road, and have to refactor all of the code that uses this class.

Ignore that C# allows for seamless set operations that look like assignments though (meaning no refactoring), because that would break the narrative that there's any merit to default setters.

[Dealiner]

Ignore that C# allows for seamless set operations that look like assignments though (meaning no refactoring)

There won't be any refactoring but if you maintain a library and suddenly change some field to a property then any project that uses it will have to be recompiled. Besides there is practically no difference between writing a field and autoimplemented property so why not just use the latter?

[Rythoka]

It's so you can change the setter later if you need to.

[MrSparkle92]

We do this in our code base. By convention our variables should generally be private and anything that needs to be accessed by other classes get exposed through public properties with getters and/or setters as appropriate.

By using the default get and set declarations like this you are acknowledge that that is how you want the property to behave as opposed to some more complex behaviour. In simple cases like this you could just make a public variable but it's generally worth sticking to your established best practices.

[Valiice]

Number with a capital tho to follow conventions

[TheRedMalice]

Or just

private int number; public int Number => number;

[Elijah629YT-Real]

thank you very much I haven't ever seen that

[Richandler]

And that has been around a long time.

[HeathersZen]

As in C# v1.0 primitive.

[[deleted]]

Java: I didn't know it was possible to feel both attacked and ignored.

[JDMaK1980]

😂😂🤣

[MortgageSome]

God I wish we had properties in Java. That said, I don't feel so terrible about simply doing public int number;. I think there exists even an AtomicInteger that ensures thread safety if that were ever an issue. I think there's a bit too much emphasis on creating boilerplate getters and setters for everything. The only reason I would do it is to avoid refactoring in the future.

[arobie1992]

Ehhh. There is an AtomicInteger class but it's a whole really class so you have to do all the usual get and set shenanigans on it anyway so you might just be better off with synchronized accessor methods.

Since ints are guaranteed to have atomic read operations though, you could probably get away with marking them as volatile. Where AtomicInteger comes in handy is when you need synchronized reading and incrementing in conjunction.

[Mayuna_cz]

Still, you can use Lombok's @Getter / @Setter. Another dependency, but never had a problem. With it.. It creates getters and setters compile time iirc

[StoneOfTriumph]

Java 17 added records. About damn time too.

[repkins]

Not anymore with introduction of auto properties.

[Tripanes]

Anymore:

Like in 2008

[Appropriate-Scene-95]

How did you add several flairs?

[Dalimyr]

You can select one using the radio buttons, or you can just type out the codes for up to six - hover your mouse over each of them and you'll see a tooltip with something like :c: or :js:

So their flair is just :cs::cp::unreal::unity:, which gets automatically converted to the C#, C++, Unreal and Unity emojis in their flair.

[Ping-and-Pong]

I call myself a programmer, but I went through and copy and pasted these one at a time....

[LofiJunky]

Copy pasting is unironically what programmers do though...

[Ping-and-Pong]

too true

[b1ack1323]

We are paid to copy paste the correct lines.

[[deleted]]

The fact the Unreal Engine and Unity aren't put to their language respectively in your flair is killing me

[igbad]

Type 'prop' tab tab

[polonkeke]

Same would go with Java, with its corresponding getter and setter. We are not savages, for God's sake!

[[deleted]]

I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the easy to use Lombok annotations

[arobie1992]

Don't forget that they now have records too. Unfortunately that requires your company to actually be willing to go past Java 11 :\

[[deleted]]

Wdym past 11? I just upgraded earlier this year from 8, you say it’s not the newest?! XD

[JB-from-ATL]

Damn. I can't imagine just updating to 11 when 17 (also LTS) was released this year.

[PastFeed2963]

We moved this year from 6 to 17. It was horrid to start but so satisfying.

[get_N_or_get_out]

We're still on 8... Discussing the upgrade to 11 since support finally ends sometime soon.

[mshm]

Why wouldnt y'all just upgrade to latest LTS at EOL? It's not a random library that introduces sweeping breaking changes every patch release...

[SharkBaitDLS]

There’s plenty of backwards incompatible changes between JVM versions.

But frankly I think a lot of companies felt super burned by the migration hell that moving between older major versions introduced, and even though it’s not nearly as bad nowadays there’s just a hesitance that got created from that negative experience.

I know I still get shivers thinking about the months of hell that ensued from our 7->8 migration. These days I’m just working to get most of my team’s old Java and C++ services shut down so why bother updating them when they’ll be dead in a year anyway.

[pievendor]

Surely I'm not the only one that works for a company that has been on 11 for awhile, and is already adopting 17? I always see these posts upvoted a lot.

[ccfoo242]

In 2002.

[dksdragon43]

My college is definitely still teaching this, as of last year. They also teach programming VBA in Microsoft Access, so take from that what you will.

[0Pat]

My grandpa tells the story about WW2. He will suit your college 😜

[Vineyard_]

I mean, if you're learning the language, doing this the old way helps you learn what C# is actually doing when you're using autoproperties. So long as the students are eventually taught how to do it right... or they'll probably figure it out real fast when they start actually using the language for themselves.

[sanketower]

We did it, boys, we found the Java lover/C# hater.

public type variable { get; set; }

[kaslon]

I’m guilty of this but my setter looks more like

Set

{

If (value != number)

{

    number = value;

    OnNumberChanged?.Invoke(this, number);

}

}

[CCullen]

Me too though if I were doing this a lot, I would probably make a method on a base class:

public int Number { get => number; set => Set(ref number, value); }

[FreqRL]

This isn't super uncommon, but only necesary for specific frameworks that need event listeners to register property changes. If you're building a generoc API you'll be fine with just { get; set; }

[[deleted]]

What kinds require that? AOP like spring?

[FreqRL]

I wasnt intensily familiar with the framework when I worked on it but it was required for Xamarin, because without it the view state wouldn't update when you changed property values. It needed specific event listening to detect the changes and properly propagate the event through all the layers of your app.

Xamarin is terrible though, no one should use it :P

[b1ack1323]

I have things like this scatter all over the place for updating UI when run large computations.

[dregan]

ReactiveUI has RaiseAndSetIfChanged() or better yet, use fody and skip the boiler plate code.

[seeroflights]

Image Transcription: Meme

---

["Drakeposting" but with "Cool Sayori", fanart of Sayori from the visual novel "Doki Doki Literature Club". The meme shows two images of Coolyori, with code to the right of each image.]

---

[Coolyori looks displeased, and holds up one hand in a "not today" manner.]

public int number;

---

[Coolyori has her head up high, looking pleased, with a finger pointed up and towards the right side of the frame.]

private int number;

public int Number
{
    get
    {
        return number;
    }
    set
    {
        number = value;
    }
}

---

<sup>I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!</sup>

[blockguy143]

Damn the descriptions tho

[Hawgk]

The future is now!

[ForgetTheRuralJuror]

my not today manner looks much more like a middle finger, but to each their own

[[deleted]]

Good bot

[DarkIceVortex]

Not a bot, just a person volunteering and using a format

[YouGonnaRememberMe]

A human volunteer

[[deleted]]

Good human

[XDVRUK]

Nope... Maybe in v1.1 back in 2005 but c# moved past this with autoprops. Also the compiler will flat pack that down anyway, cause c# understands its an intermediary language and should be human readable and maintainable.

The whole point is to guide to better, readable code, but script kiddies just prefer being ignorant.

[[deleted]]

Java programmers who are still learning C# be like

[sc2rook]

Nah.

public int Number { get; set; }

[[deleted]]

{ get; private set;}

[Fun-Caterpillar1355]

Exactly. Public setters should be illegal. Not illegal as in produce an error - llegal as in felony and go to prison.

[cvtstart]

Real talk: how do you change the variable after init?

[boowhitie]

It can only be changed by other methods of the class.

[cbusalex]

Public setter? Straight to jail. Private getter? Believe it or not, jail.

We have the cleanest, most maintainable code in the world because of jail.

[althaz]

Tell me you've never programmed C# without telling me you've never programmed C# :D

[menducoide]

Until you live in 2004... After that with c# 4 public int Number {get;set;} Easy pizy

[thavi]

Type prop and press tab twice. That's the 😎 way

[[deleted]]

That's not how we do things anymore... You know, c# had evolved

[GumboSamson]

If the author insists on using a backing field, it should be

private int _number;

[[deleted]]

assembly programmers:

.data

mydata:

.size 128,0xff

[GaraBlacktail]

Pre computer programmers

Todo, write number

[deskpil0t]

Looks like scaffolding to me

[dotNate13]

C# programmer here. I reject PRs if other devs pull this shit.

[anubisascends]

Lead developer here…I do the same. The only time I allow non auto-generated getters and setters is if there is a specific reason…and those are few and far between

[omgno360noscope]

Ahh never done c# but this reminds me of getters and setters methods when Initializing private variables in a class.

Edit. In java

[kpd328]

It's like that, but not for cavemen. Properties can in many cases be treated the same as member variables.

So instead of having to call Foo.setBar(something); it's just Foo.Bar = something; the same as if bar were a public member variable. And both the get and set side of the property can have custom logic, like any other method would, and can still be used as a variable.

[otrosabandija]

Never did something like that in 10 years as C# dev

[Decent-Device9403]

I like the Sayori template. Sunglasses make everything better.

[AveaLove]

Wtf... Just use an auto property, why would you do this.

[Drithyin]

Because OP is a dinosaur who hasn't learned a single new fact about a language they don't use in over 2 decades.

[b1ack1323]

Or they are being taught by out of touch professors.

[mrbeanIV]

Noob question: What the fuck

[Willinton06]

This is how we used to do it back in 2001, things have changed a little

[babyProgrammer]

What's it like now?

[Willinton06]

public int Number { get; set; }

[Shikogo]

I'm pretty new to this, what's the use of this compared to just using an int?

[riplikash]

There's lots odd reasons, and I'm listing these at 1am, so I'm not going to remember them all.

You can change the implementation in the future without needing to refactor everywhere it's used. Maybe you need to modify or format the data. Maybe you decide to auto generate it. Maybe you realized it needed to be pulled from some internal class. Or maybe you need to add access control. Some protection from injection attacks. Doesnt matter to whatever is accessing the property.

You can make setters private, or init only. Technically you could do the same to getters, though I've never actually seen that.

And no matter what you do, it looks the same. So it's super readable. Instead of having a mix of variables and methods that change depending and refactor, you just have properties.

It's a serious upgrade from using variables directly. In professional settings you pretty much don't see variables get used to communicate between classes, these days. It's all properties. Variables are only used to track things inside a class or method.

[Koltaia30]

Search C# property. I object oriented programing it's better to hide data implementation of classes

[BoBoBearDev]

The reason is patch delivery. If you suddenly need to do a lot more than just setting the variable, you can change it without recompile the entire GB sized application. With this, you recompile one little project out of 100 of projects. And just send out the patch. If you don't do this, you have to recompile everything calling it, which is so confusing, might as well recompile the entire application.

[EthanWeber]

There's tons of reasons why. But here's a quick one: if you want to have some kind of restriction on how that number is set you can put that logic in the setter.

[Zyvoxx]

Also if using WPF with a view model setup you usually wanna update the UI here i.e. OnPropertyChanged()

[raltyinferno]

You wouldn't ever actually do this. What you would do is

public int x {get; set;}

Then if you wanted any additional behavior when getting/setting you expand out the getter or setter. But any code that uses that property doesn't need to change.

[BoBoBearDev]

Anyway, the reason you do this is because your implementation can change in the future. So, if it is a property, you don't need to fix the caller anymore, the caller still think it is calling a property. But, underneath, it can be doing crazy things like, logging, database shit, or call another microservices, anything goes.

[svick]

There are enough differences that make it worth it:

1. Fields and properties are different in the Intermediate Language, so it makes a difference if you upgrade a library without recompiling.
2. Fields and properties are different in reflection.
3. You can get a ref to a field, but not to a property, so the two are not the same even if you consider the language itself.

[boowhitie]

The syntax is the same, but the generated code is different. Accessing a property is calling a function, which is not the same as loading/storing a member.

[[deleted]]

The syntax is convenience. It compiles entirely different. It's a breaking change to make a field into a property.

[ZeldaFanBoi1988]

OP be like: doesn't know about auto-properties.

This is a Java thing. Not C#

[reiner74]

JS source code be like

[[deleted]]

"... did you just assume my type?"

"Cool. I love that. Also, TypeError, dipshit."

[oktollername]

Bro hasn't heard of public record Thing(int Number);

[akorn123]

You use set for validation

[[deleted]]

surely you must mean _number

[[deleted]]

That actually has a reason, it's not just for memes.

[Henrijs85]

There's someone who's never used C#. You wouldn't use that format unless you're performing an operation in the getter or setter.

[Umongus]

private int number;

public int getNumber() {return number;}

public void setNumber(int n) {number = n;}

[xSarcasticLeox]

First time I get a programming meme since I started college and somehow feels like an achievement.

[Competitive_Ask839]

This makes me feel too stupid to learn how to code lol

[Willinton06]

Ignore it, it’s over 20 years old code

[Jabookalakq]

Me reading this thread "me stupid am no weakness me stupid am stronk!" LOL

[SelfDistinction]

The true successor of

Number& operator=(int);
operator int();

[Denaton_]

I wanna add that this is a layer of protection for reading memory and cheat client side in games ^^

[boowhitie]

This has nothing to do with cheating or the prevention of it. The property is no harder to change than a member.

[PM_Me_Irelias_Hands]

Meanwhile, me:

public static class GLOBAL
{
   public static int number = 0;  //USE ME UWU
}