Getters and Setters are bad OO design?

c# java oop encapsulation
Julio picture Julio · Apr 30, 2010 · Viewed 12.7k times · Source

Getters and Setters are bad

Briefly reading over the above article I find that getters and setters are bad OO design and should be avoided as they go against Encapsulation and Data Hiding. As this is the case how can it be avoided when creating objects and how can one model objects to take this into account.

In cases where a getter or setter is required what other alternatives can be used?

Thanks.

Answer

Cory Petosky picture Cory Petosky · Apr 30, 2010

You have missed the point. The valid, important bit of that article is:

Don't ask for the information you need to do the work; ask the object that has the information to do the work for you.

Java-style getter and setter proliferation are symptoms of ignoring this advice.

Related questions

Class with single method -- best approach?

Say I have a class that's meant to perform a single function. After performing the function, it can be destroyed. Is there any reason to prefer one of these approaches? // Initialize arguments in constructor MyClass myObject = new MyClass(arg1, arg2, …

Read More
Why it is a bad practice to use break/continue labels in OOP (e.g. Java, C#)?

I was told that using break and continue labels in an OOP language is not OOP programming style. Can you explain in detail why and what is the problem? The trick was with this label word. I meant labeled break/…

Read More
How exactly do static fields work internally?

Say you have a class, class Foo { public static bar; } When you say: new Foo(); I can imagine that in memory, a space is reserved for this object. ...and when you say again: new Foo(); ...well now you have another …

Read More