No, it's not extra functionality, it's a crutch > being able to override the getter/setter in a subclass I think even C++ can do this without an explicitly na

No, it's not extra functionality, it's a crutch > being able to override the getter/setter in a subclass I think even C++ can do this without an explicitly named getter/setter > and keeping a consistent interface so users don't need to change how it's called Just use a better language > Python has @property to maintain that interface if need be Exactly. Java is unjustifiably limited in this regard