So, I have willfully kept myself a Java n00b until recently, and my first real exposure brought about a minor shock: Java does not have C# style properties!

Ok, I can live with that. However, I can also swear that I have seen property getter/setter code in Java in one codebase, but I cannot remember where. How was that achieved? Is there a language extension for that? Is it related to NetBeans or something?


(no) Properties in Java?

Is there a difference between using the underscore and using the `self` keyword in Objective-C when calling an `@property`?

Property declaration:

    @property (weak, nonatomic) NSString *myString;

Calling `@synthesize` on the property:

    @synthesize myString = _myString;

Is there a difference if I want to use it in my code? When? In the getter/setter?

    self.myString = @&quot;test&quot;;
    _myString = @&quot;test&quot;;

Difference between _ and self. in Objective-C

If I need to write a setter and/or getter for I write it like this:

    struct X { /*...*/};
    
    class Foo
    {
    private:
        X x_;
    
    public:
        void set_x(X value)
        {
            x_ = value;
        }
        X get_x()
        {
            return x_;
        }
    };

However I have heard that this is the *Java style* of writing setters and getters and that I should write it in C++ style. Moreover I was told it is ineficient and even incorrect. What does that mean? How can I write the setters and getters in C++?

---

**Assume the need for getters and/or setters is justified**. E.g. maybe we do some checks in the setter, or maybe we write only the getter.

There has been a lot of chatter about not needing getters and setters. While I agree with most of what&#39;s been said here, I still avocate for the need to know how to idiomatically write such methods because there are legitimate reasons where getters and setters are the right solution. They might not look at first glance as a setter or getter but they are, or at least the pattern for writing them applies.

E.g.:

* Getting the size of a vector. You don&#39;t want to expose a data member, because it needs to be read only.

* Getters and setters don&#39;t need to just expose a data member. Think about getting and setting an element of an array. There is logic there, you can&#39;t just expose a data member, there is no data member to expose in the first place. It&#39;s still a getter/setter pair you can&#39;t avoid:

    ```
    class Vector
    {
        void set_element(std::size_t index, int new_value);
        int get_element(std::size_t index);
    };
    ```

  Knowing the C++ idiomatic way of writing getters and setters will allow me to write the above `get_element`/`set_element` in a C++ idiomatic way.



How to write C++ getters and setters

With this simple class I am getting the compiler *warning* 

&gt; Attempting to modify/access `x` within its own setter/getter

 and when I use it like this:

    var p: point = Point()
    p.x = 12

I get an EXC_BAD_ACCESS. How can I do this without explicit backing ivars?


    class Point {
        
        var x: Int {
            set {
                x = newValue * 2 //Error
            }
            get {
                return x / 2 //Error
            }
        }
        // ...
    }

Property getters and setters

Here is a pure Python-specific design question: 

    class MyClass(object):
        ...
        def get_my_attr(self):
            ...

        def set_my_attr(self, value):
            ...

and 

    class MyClass(object):
        ...        
        @property
        def my_attr(self):
            ...

        @my_attr.setter
        def my_attr(self, value):
            ...

Python lets us to do it either way. If you would design a Python program, which approach would you use and why?

Using @property versus getters and setters

I have the following class:

    class ReportView: NSView {	
    	var categoriesPerPage = [[Int]]()
    	var numPages: Int = { return categoriesPerPage.count }
    }

Compilation fails with the message:

&gt; Instance member &#39;categoriesPerPage&#39; cannot be used on type
&gt; &#39;ReportView&#39;

 What does this mean? 


Instance member cannot be used on type

I am aware of how to create getters and setters for properties whose names one already knows, by doing something like this:

    // A trivial example:
    function MyObject(val){
        this.count = 0;
        this.value = val;
    }
    MyObject.prototype = {
        get value(){
            return this.count &lt; 2 ? &quot;Go away&quot; : this._value;
        },
        set value(val){
            this._value = val + (++this.count);
        }
    };
    var a = new MyObject(&#39;foo&#39;);
    
    alert(a.value); // --&gt; &quot;Go away&quot;
    a.value = &#39;bar&#39;;
    alert(a.value); // --&gt; &quot;bar2&quot;

Now, my question is, is it possible to define sort of catch-all getters and setters like these?  I.e., create getters and setters for any property name which *isn&#39;t* already defined.

The concept is possible in PHP using the `__get()` and `__set()` magic methods (see [the PHP documentation][1] for information on these), so I&#39;m really asking is there a JavaScript equivalent to these?

Needless to say, I&#39;d ideally like a solution that is cross-browser compatible.

  [1]: http://uk3.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php

Is it possible to implement dynamic getters/setters in JavaScript?

I&#39;ve created an interface with some properties.

If the interface didn&#39;t exist all properties of the class object would be set to

    { get; private set; }

However, this isn&#39;t allowed when using an interface,so can this be achieved and if so how?


How do you implement a private setter when using an interface?

Why is the following C# code not allowed:

    public abstract class BaseClass
    {
        public abstract int Bar { get;}
    }

    public class ConcreteClass : BaseClass
    {
        public override int Bar
        {
            get { return 0; }
            set {}
        }
    }

&gt; CS0546 &#39;ConcreteClass.Bar.set&#39;: cannot override because &#39;BaseClass.Bar&#39; does not have an overridable set accessor

Why is it impossible to override a getter-only property and add a setter?

I saw something like the following somewhere, and was wondering what it meant. I know they are getters and setters, but want to know why the string Type is defined like this. Thanks for helping me.

    public string Type { get; set; }

c#: getter/setter

this is my code:

    @Column(columnName=&quot;firstname&quot;)
 

    private String firstName;
     
     @Column(columnName=&quot;lastname&quot;)
     private String lastName;
    
     public String getFirstName() {
      return firstName;
     }
    
     public void setFirstName(String firstName) {
      this.firstName = firstName;
     }
    
     public String getLastName() {
      return lastName;
     }
    
     public void setLastName(String lastName) {
      this.lastName = lastName;
     }

is it possible to read the value of my annotation @Column(**columnName**=&quot;xyz123&quot;) in another class?



Is it possible to read the value of a annotation in java?

In Java, for example, I can write getters on my own (generated by IDE) or use Annotations like @Getter in lombok - which was pretty simple.

Kotlin however has [getters and setters by default][1].
But I can&#39;t understand how to use them.

I want to make it, lets say - similar to Java:

    private val isEmpty: String
            get() = this.toString() //making this thing public rises an error: Getter visibility must be the same as property visibility.

So how do getters work? 


  [1]: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/properties.html

Getters and Setters in Kotlin

I&#39;m doing it like:

    def set_property(property,value):  
    def get_property(property):  

 or 
 
    object.property = value  
    value = object.property

I&#39;m new to Python, so i&#39;m still exploring the syntax, and i&#39;d like some advice on doing this.  



What&#39;s the pythonic way to use getters and setters?

I&#39;m trying to overwrite a getter method for an ActiveRecord model. I have an attribute called `name` in the model `Category`, and I&#39;d like to be able to do something like this:

    def name
      name_trans || name
    end

If `name_trans` attribute is not nil, then return it, else return `name` attribute. How would I do this?

This should then be called normally like this:

    @category.name


How can I overwrite a getter method in an ActiveRecord model?

I&#39;m taking a C# class right now and I&#39;m trying to find out the best way of doing things. I come from a Java background and so I&#39;m only familiar with Java best-practices; I&#39;m a C# novice!

In Java if I have a private property, I do this;

    private String name;
    
    public void setName(String name) {
       this.name = name;
    }
    
    public String getName() {
       return this.name;
    }

In C#, I see that there are many ways of doing this.

I can do it like Java:

    private string name;
    
    public void setName(string name) {
       this.name = name;
    }
    
    public string getName() {
       return this.name;
    }

Or I can do it this way:

    private string name;

    public string Name {
       get { return name; }
       set { name = value; }
    }

Or:

    public string Name { get; set; }

Which one should I use, and what are the caveats or subtleties involved with each approach? When creating classes, I am following general best-practices that I know from Java (especially reading Effective Java). So for example, I am favoring immutability (providing setters only when necessary). I&#39;m just curious to see how these practices fit in with the various ways of providing setters and getters in C#; essentially, how would I translate best-practices from the Java world into C#?

**EDIT**

I was posting this as a comment to Jon Skeet&#39;s answer but then it got long:

What about a non-trivial property (i.e., with significant processing and validation perhaps)? Could I still expose it via a public property but with the logic encapsulated in `get` and `set`? Why would/should I do this over having dedicated setter and getter methods (with associated processing and validation logic).

Getters, setters, and properties best practices. Java vs. C#

Is there a way to have a private setter for a property in TypeScript?

	class Test
	{
		private _prop: string;
		public get prop() : string
		{
			return this._prop;
		}

		private set prop(val: string)
		{
			//can put breakpoints here
			this._prop = val;
		}
	}

Compiler complains that visibility for getter and setter don&#39;t match. I know I can just set the backing field, but but then I can&#39;t set breakpoints when the value is set.

I though about using an interface to hide the setter, but interfaces can only define a property, not whether it has a getter on setter.

Am I missing something here? There doesn&#39;t seem to be any reason to not allow private setters, the resulting JS doesn&#39;t enforce visibility anyway, and seems better that the current alternatives.

Am I missing something? If not is there a good reason for no private setters?

Private setter typescript?

Using get/set seems to be a common practice in Java (for various reasons), but I hardly see Python code that uses this.

Why do you use or avoid get/set methods in Python?

Do you use the get/set pattern (in Python)?

    public:
         inline int GetValue() const {
              return m_nValue;
         }
         inline void SetValue(int nNewValue) {
              this -&gt; m_nValue = nNewValue;
         }

On _Learn C++_, they said it would run faster. So, I thought it would be great to use on getters and setters. But maybe, there are some drawbacks to it?

Is it good practice to make getters and setters inline?

I have a doubt about protocols in Swift about the use of **var** and the **keywords { get set }**.

From [Apple documentation][1]:

&gt; If a protocol requires a property to be gettable and settable, that
&gt; property requirement cannot be fulfilled by a constant stored property
&gt; or a read-only computed property. If the protocol only requires a
&gt; property to be gettable, the requirement can be satisfied by any kind
&gt; of property, and it is valid for the property to be also settable if
&gt; this is useful for your own code.
&gt; 
&gt; Property requirements are always declared as variable properties,
&gt; prefixed with the var keyword. Gettable and settable properties are
&gt; indicated by writing { get set } after their type declaration, and
&gt; gettable properties are indicated by writing { get }.

I can&#39;t understand why I can&#39;t use **let**. A **var** in a protocol with only **get** isn&#39;t just a **let**?

Something like this:

    protocol someProtocol 
    {
       var someProperty: String { get }
    }

it would not be just:

    protocol someProtocol 
    {
       let someProperty: String
    }

I&#39;m missing something?

  [1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Protocols.html

Why I can&#39;t use let in protocol in Swift?

I Need to know how to have NetBeans generate getters and setters using a shortcut.

Generate getters and setters in NetBeans

Is it bad practice to change my getter method like version 2 in my class.

Version 1:

     public String getMyValue(){
         return this.myValue
     }

Version 2:

     public String getMyValue(){
 
        if(this.myValue == null || this.myValue.isEmpty()){
           this.myValue = &quot;N/A&quot;;
        }

        return this.myValue;
     }


Is it bad practice to have my getter method change the stored value?

I have been programming in C# for a while and now I want to brush up on my C++ skills. 

Having the class:

    class Foo
    {
        const std::string&amp; name_;
        ...
    };

What would be the best approach (I only want to allow read access to the name_ field):

 - use a getter method: `inline const std::string&amp; name() const { return name_; }`
 - make the field public since it&#39;s a constant

Thanks.

C++ getters/setters coding style

When I generate JAXB classes from an XSD, the elements with `maxOccurs=&quot;unbounded&quot;` gets a getter method generated for them, but no setter method, as follows:

    /**
     * Gets the value of the element3 property.
     * 
     * &lt;p&gt;
     * This accessor method returns a reference to the live list,
     * not a snapshot. Therefore any modification you make to the
     * returned list will be present inside the JAXB object.
     * This is why there is not a &lt;CODE&gt;set&lt;/CODE&gt; method for the element3 property.
     * 
     * &lt;p&gt;
     * For example, to add a new item, do as follows:
     * &lt;pre&gt;
     *    getElement3().add(newItem);
     * &lt;/pre&gt;
     * 
     * 
     * &lt;p&gt;
     * Objects of the following type(s) are allowed in the list
     * {@link Type }
     * 
     * 
     */
    public List&lt;Type&gt; getElement3() {
        if (element3 == null) {
            element3 = new ArrayList&lt;Type&gt;();
        }
        return this.element3;
    }

The method comment makes it crystal clear on how can I use it, but my question is as follows: &lt;br&gt;**Why doesn&#39;t JAXB just generate a setter, following the Java Beans rules?** I know I can write the setter method myself, but is there any advantage to the approach suggested in the generated getter method?

This is my XSD:

    &lt;?xml version=&quot;1.0&quot; encoding=&quot;UTF-8&quot;?&gt;
    &lt;schema xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema&quot; xmlns:tns=&quot;http://www.example.org/DoTransfer/&quot; targetNamespace=&quot;http://www.example.org/DoTransfer/&quot;&gt;
    
        &lt;element name=&quot;CollectionTest&quot; type=&quot;tns:CollectionTest&quot;&gt;&lt;/element&gt;
        
        &lt;complexType name=&quot;CollectionTest&quot;&gt;
        	&lt;sequence&gt;
        		&lt;element name=&quot;element1&quot; type=&quot;string&quot; maxOccurs=&quot;1&quot; minOccurs=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;/element&gt;
        		&lt;element name=&quot;element2&quot; type=&quot;boolean&quot; maxOccurs=&quot;1&quot; minOccurs=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;/element&gt;
        		&lt;element name=&quot;element3&quot; type=&quot;tns:type&quot; maxOccurs=&quot;unbounded&quot; minOccurs=&quot;1&quot; nillable=&quot;true&quot;&gt;&lt;/element&gt;
        	&lt;/sequence&gt;
        &lt;/complexType&gt;
    
    
        &lt;complexType name=&quot;type&quot;&gt;
        	&lt;sequence&gt;
        		&lt;element name=&quot;subelement1&quot; type=&quot;string&quot; maxOccurs=&quot;1&quot; minOccurs=&quot;1&quot;&gt;&lt;/element&gt;
        		&lt;element name=&quot;subelement2&quot; type=&quot;string&quot; maxOccurs=&quot;1&quot; minOccurs=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;/element&gt;
        	&lt;/sequence&gt;
        &lt;/complexType&gt;
    &lt;/schema&gt;

Why doesn&#39;t JAXB generate setters for Lists

We have some Hibernate getter methods annotated with both `@Column` and `@Basic`.

We get an exception if we don&#39;t have the corresponding setter.  Why is this? 

In our case we are deriving the value returned from the getter (to get stored in the DB) and the setter has no functional purpose.  So we just have an empty method to get around the error condition..   

Does Hibernate always need a setter when there is a getter?

I know how getter and setter work in JavaScript. What I don&#39;t understand is why we need them when we can get the same result using normal functions? Consider the following code:

    var person = {
        firstName: &#39;Jimmy&#39;,
        lastName: &#39;Smith&#39;,
        get fullName() {
            return this.firstName + &#39; &#39; + this.lastName;
        }
    }
    
    console.log(person.fullName);    // Jimmy Smith
        
We can easily replace getter with a function:

    var person = {
        firstName: &#39;Jimmy&#39;,
        lastName: &#39;Smith&#39;,
        fullName: function() {
            return this.firstName + &#39; &#39; + this.lastName;
        }
    }
    
    console.log(person.fullName());    // Jimmy Smith

I don&#39;t see the point of writing getter and setter.


Why use getters and setters in JavaScript?

I am having trouble understanding the concept of getters and setters *in the C# language*. In languages like Objective-C, they seem an integral part of the system, but not so much in C# (*as far as I can tell*). I have read books and articles already, so my question is, to those of you who understand getters &amp; setters in C#, what example would you personally use if you were teaching the concept to a complete beginner (*this would include as few lines of code as possible*)? 

Looking for a short &amp; simple example of getters/setters in C#

Is there a better standard way to create getters and setters in Java?

It is quite verbose to have to explicitly define getters and setters for each variable. Is there a better standard annotations approach?

Does Spring have something like this?

Even C# has properties.

All Getter Setter Solutions on Gang of Coders

Total of 27 Getter Setter Solutions