3 ms·
I don't find much validity to this argument that constantly comes up. Out of the box, you have two options and neither are bad... (1) Make your variable package
by logn 11y ago
I don't find much validity to this argument that constantly comes up. Out of the box, you have two options and neither are bad... (1) Make your variable package/public/protected scope and refactor one day if you have to. (2) Use getters/setters, possibly with shorter names (if your fancy framework allows that) and more terse formatting.
Is this so bad?
int size(){ return size; }
void size(int newSize){ size = newSize; }
The setter shouldn't be so common anyhow because immutability is better.
Besides, if you have a thousand getter/setters then your problem might not be Java.
- lmm 11y agoMost coding standards don't like that, and if you can't autoformat your code then you have bigger problems. I do agree that some of the problems are cultural rather than inherent to the language, but even if we do that, public class Potato { private final int size; public Potato(int size) { this.size = size; } int size() { return size; } } makes poor reading in comparison to class Potato(val size: Int) (I didn't mean a thousand getters/setters in a single class, but across the codebase as a whole)