41–50 of 228 posts
Nothing pollutes java source more than getters and setters. I can't believe this still isn't being address. Wish they'd move in the direction Groovy has in this regard.
Sorry to ask, but as a noob who just picked up Java, how do other languages address this issue? What's wrong with getters and setters?
public int Age{get;set;}
no need to declare private variable, get or set methods.
Nothing pollutes java source more than getters and setters. I can't believe this still isn't being address. Wish they'd move in the direction Groovy has in this regard.
Sorry to ask, but as a noob who just picked up Java, how do other languages address this issue? What's wrong with getters and setters?
It's just redundant code. Most of the time developers don't actually need to override the basic get/set operation on a variable. Yet you have to write the get/set methods over and over.
How do other languages address this issue?
Scala does a good job. You don't need to actually write a get/set method. But if you wanted to modify getFoo() you would simply implement the method with your custom getter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that not what final does? I'd be interested in seeing C#-like getters and setters. As long as they're just getting and setting, they're implied, but if you want to introduce a check or some other logic, you can do so without changing the signature of the class . Groovy does some of this, but it requires you to use the name of the field - ie. person.age will check for a getAge() method first, then fall back on the…
Yes, sort of like final... but different. I was thinking this is more for _public_ variables... so like internally, a class could modify it's own readable fields, but code external could read only.
public int MyProperty{
get; //public
private set; //private-only setter
}
Still no hash literal :-(
Not really a place for it in a strongly typed language like Java :/ I could maybe see language support for creating Maps or something, but in Java you're supposed to create your own Objects and let the compiler check your code for errors.
Nothing pollutes java source more than getters and setters. I can't believe this still isn't being address. Wish they'd move in the direction Groovy has in this regard.
Sorry to ask, but as a noob who just picked up Java, how do other languages address this issue? What's wrong with getters and setters?
Nothing pollutes java source more than getters and setters. I can't believe this still isn't being address. Wish they'd move in the direction Groovy has in this regard.
Sorry to ask, but as a noob who just picked up Java, how do other languages address this issue? What's wrong with getters and setters?
Nothing pollutes java source more than getters and setters. I can't believe this still isn't being address. Wish they'd move in the direction Groovy has in this regard.
Sorry to ask, but as a noob who just picked up Java, how do other languages address this issue? What's wrong with getters and setters?
As an added bonus, you don't need to write foo.getBar(), you can just write foo.bar and it Just Works, whether foo.bar is a concrete implementation or a computed property.
Look at this blog post for example:
http://java.dzone.com/articles/java-properties-without
The sad thing is the request here is for something more ugly than what is really wanted (this is just automatic getter/setter implementation -- computed properties are better both for developers and consumers of their output.
They are going to improve lock performance, but do nothing to help people avoid locking like lightweight threads. Not waking up a thread and not locking is faster...
It's weird how so many software projects completely lose sight of the fundamentals.
I know I am biased due to how I use Java. I care very little for syntax and syntactic sugar. Reading and typing speed is not a problem for me. Get stuff done on time is and working around these shortcomings eats up my time.
Nothing pollutes java source more than getters and setters. I can't believe this still isn't being address. Wish they'd move in the direction Groovy has in this regard.
Sorry to ask, but as a noob who just picked up Java, how do other languages address this issue? What's wrong with getters and setters?
Basically you keep states encapsulated without have to manually write methods,you just write methods when you need then.
Java verbosity on that matter is totally unecessary.
Granted when one use an IDE refactoring features can help,but still... A great strenght of the Java language is its stability.But stability doesnt mean a language needs to be that verbose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to ask, but as a noob who just picked up Java, how do other languages address this issue? What's wrong with getters and setters?
For c# just: public int Age{get;set;} no need to declare private variable, get or set methods.
foo.baz += foo.bar;
vs.
foo.setBaz( foo.getBaz() + foo.getBar() );