3 ms·

This seems to deny the fact that a lot of data exists to just be stored and displayed. Probably 85% of all software in the world has a "FirstName" field/proper

This seems to deny the fact that a lot of data exists to just be stored and displayed. Probably 85% of all software in the world has a "FirstName" field/property/column in it somewhere. What name you propose giving a method that changes that value?

HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
I guess I'd call it "changeLastName". That's closer to the domain, we don't go to the Department of Births, Deaths and Marriage and tell the clerk we want to "set" our last name. But that is being too pedantic, even for me. I'll concede defeat. That is a pretty good example. At the end of the day, "customer details" class is actually a big bag of fields that needs some access control and validation.
- wvenable 9y ago
  If you get married, you might "changeLastName" or maybe even "rename" yourself but if you're just moving that name from one place to another you'd "set" it. You could probably come up with lots of different names but none of them will be more clear than "set" in this case.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    If moving requires a name to be set you are at constructor time, no need for permanently available setters.
    - wvenable 9y ago
      Two things with that, you're assuming immutability but even a simple database entity object wouldn't be immutable. And secondly, anything over a handful of values and setting them via a constructor isn't pretty.
abiox 9y ago
if it's just used for display, use a new value. if there's more to the domain context, i'd call it rename(~). i think from the outside, it's better to articulate what you want in domain semantics, rather than implementation semantics.
- HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
  i think from the outside, it's better to articulate what you want in domain semantics, rather than implementation semantics. You've articulated here what I've actually been trying to communicate. I have no problem if a method does nothing but get/set a variable. I just think they should be named with domain semantics.

HumanDrivenDev 9y ago

I guess I'd call it "changeLastName". That's closer to the domain, we don't go to the Department of Births, Deaths and Marriage and tell the clerk we want to "set" our last name. But that is being too pedantic, even for me. I'll concede defeat. That is a pretty good example. At the end of the day, "customer details" class is actually a big bag of fields that needs some access control and validation.

wvenable 9y ago
If you get married, you might "changeLastName" or maybe even "rename" yourself but if you're just moving that name from one place to another you'd "set" it. You could probably come up with lots of different names but none of them will be more clear than "set" in this case.
- usrusr 9y ago
  If moving requires a name to be set you are at constructor time, no need for permanently available setters.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    Two things with that, you're assuming immutability but even a simple database entity object wouldn't be immutable. And secondly, anything over a handful of values and setting them via a constructor isn't pretty.

abiox 9y ago

if it's just used for display, use a new value. if there's more to the domain context, i'd call it rename(~). i think from the outside, it's better to articulate what you want in domain semantics, rather than implementation semantics.

HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
i think from the outside, it's better to articulate what you want in domain semantics, rather than implementation semantics. You've articulated here what I've actually been trying to communicate. I have no problem if a method does nothing but get/set a variable. I just think they should be named with domain semantics.