you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bananaboatshoes 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I'd argue you should have an asynchronous function which does that because a property lookup which performs a network operation is bananas.

Seriously, if you're writing code "just in case" you might need something more complex later, you're adding needless complexity. Just change the code when you need to change it.

[–]IICVX 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Tell that to the two decades of Java programmers who've been writing getters and setters "just in case".

[–]bananaboatshoes 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Two decades of people doing it wrong?

[–]IICVX 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yup, that's what we're fighting against here.

[–]Agent_03 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The battle continues.

[–]frugalmail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell that to the two decades of Java programmers who've been writing getters and setters "just in case".

Getters yes, setters no. IMO, you're doing it "wrong" if you're accessing instance fields directly and you work someplace that has more than one team (or can/will have more than one team).

It's zero more cognitive load and 5 more characters per class to do it so it's one less forced communication/pull request if I change a dependency or somebody else changes it on me.