About the only time fields might be preferable is where you want to read a file (a bitmap, say) and then cast it to a class. A lot of the lower-level classes in MFC did that. CRect, CPoint, etc.
On 25 August 2010 12:07, Mark Ryall <mark.ry...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you create some library that expose anemic DTO classes that have public > and mutable fields and no behaviour then you'll have great difficulty ever > taking that away. That applies even if you're the only consumer. > > There are certainly some occasions where this is justifiable (for > serialising objects or transfer or persistance or whatever - ORMs usually > require these unfortunate sort of classes) but seems to mostly defeat the > purpose of OO. > > I prefer languages (like ruby or smalltalk for instance) that don't give > you the option of exposing the internal state of classes (without some > degree of violence) unless you create methods (which is all properties > really are). > > That's not because i'm a purist - there are just fewer things to worry > about when your classes are mostly immutable except via behaviours you > choose to add to them. > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Sinclair < > jeff.sinclair.em...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> True, with properties, changes can be completed maintaining binary >> compatibility. >> But really how often do you have an assembly where binary compatibility is >> actually an issue? >> Sometime sure, but I'm thinking it's more often the exception than the >> rule. >> >> Adding properties in later maintains source compatibility, and generally >> I've found that's more than enough. >> >> Jeff >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com >> ] >> On Behalf Of Mark Hurd >> Sent: Wednesday, 25 August 2010 9:28 AM >> To: ozDotNet >> Subject: Re: Properties >> >> The thing with properties is that once you have them, changes can be >> completed without changing the interface, including the binary >> compatibility >> of public interfaces. >> >> Nevertheless, if your class of variables is not public I too would >> consider >> just using fields. >> -- >> Regards, >> Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.) >> >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Jeff Sinclair >> <jeff.sinclair.em...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Can some one tell me why people get so worked up about all fields >> > being private and accessed only via properties. >> > >> > If you have a class which is only used essentially as group of >> > variables, eg to put into a data structure like a tree or something >> > then why not public fields? >> > >> > Do all those properties really add any value? >> > >> > Jeff >> >> > -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
