> But in a language like Java, where field access has its own semantics divorced from function calls, you need getters/setters to achieve a similar effect. I t

> But in a language like Java, where field access has its own semantics divorced from function calls, you need getters/setters to achieve a similar effect. I think the problem with Java's approach wasn't just in allowing primitive slot access, it was in making that access be simpler and use less boilerplate than accessor access, so people are tempted to use it where it isn't really what they specifically want, and accessors feel like extra work. I think that most of the time when people complain about getters and setters, their main issue is just the extra syntax they require in languages like Java. In contrast, Lisp makes using accessors the path of least resistance, so if someone does use primitive slot access, they probably consciously really wanted that. In a class definition like: (defclass my-class () ((x :accessor x))) The :ACCESSSOR option lets you write (x instance) and (setf (x instance) new-value); with or without it you can write (slot-value instance 'x) and (setf (slot-value instance 'x) new-value) for primitive slot access. It's really just a shorthand for defining methods like: (defmethod x ((my-class my-class)) (slot-value my-class 'x)) (defmethod (setf x) (new-value (my-class my-class)) (setf (slot-value my-class 'x) new-value)) But just by providing that little shortcut (and by not having a shortercut for primitive access) it's enough to make getters and setters the default in a way that people rarely complain about.