> Anyway, getters and setters are an antipattern as well since one can just as well make all the fields public. I Java? Yes. Because of the language design, an

> Anyway, getters and setters are an antipattern as well since one can just as well make all the fields public. I Java? Yes. Because of the language design, and not because of some inherent "encapsulation" or something. Somehow `x with { a = b }` doesn't break encapsulation and offers nice DX. But object initializers? Lol > And a class will be able to choose which things can be set, which is not the case for initializers. The class in C# can easily chose what can and cannot be set. Because unlike Java it actually cares about things like this. Quick example class Test { public int x { get; set; } public int y { get; } } var t = new Test{ x = 1, y = 2 }; I can give you a hint: this will not compile. Another example: public class Matrix { private double[,] storage = new double[3, 3]; public double this[int row, int column] { // The embedded array will throw out of range exceptions as appropriate. get { return storage[row, column]; } set { storage[row, column] = value; } } } var identity = new Matrix { [0, 0] = 1.0, [0, 1] = 0.0, [0, 2] = 0.0, [1, 0] = 0.0, [1, 1] = 1.0, [1, 2] = 0.0, [2, 0] = 0.0, [2, 1] = 0.0, [2, 2] = 1.0, }; Incomprehensible abilities for Java-land > That code won't look that much different with async/await. Lol. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49726868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49726868