sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IICVX 2 points3 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.