Why getter and setter methods are evil(javaworld.com)
javaworld.com
Why getter and setter methods are evil
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html?page=1
3 comments
What I find more insidious is the way accessor methods naturally encourage you to treat them as if they are performance-equivalent with member variables. People will reference them in loops, blithely unaware that they're building and rebuilding the same data structures in accessors that are only superficially similar to member variables.
What do you do to avoid this? I try to name my heavy-lifting methods so that they do not look like simple accessors, but sometimes it is inevitable.
For instance, a large dataset may have a method to get the length of the dataset. If the dataset does not maintain a member variable that has that value, then you have to calculate it. Later, for performance, you might implement an ivar that is updated whenever the dataset changes, thus making the method a simple accessor.
For instance, a large dataset may have a method to get the length of the dataset. If the dataset does not maintain a member variable that has that value, then you have to calculate it. Later, for performance, you might implement an ivar that is updated whenever the dataset changes, thus making the method a simple accessor.
If something walks and quacks like a member variable, I'm happy to make it a member variable. Otherwise, it gets to be a function.
(Obviously this doesn't apply in languages like ObjC or C++ where accessors are often necessary for memory management)
(Obviously this doesn't apply in languages like ObjC or C++ where accessors are often necessary for memory management)
Jump to page 6 and read the summary : http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbo...
The rest of the article has some interesting points, but I found it too wordy.
The rest of the article has some interesting points, but I found it too wordy.