Timeline for Do ALL your variables need to be declared private? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 12, 2012 at 4:33 | comment | added | Jim G. | -1: I tend to quickly lose interest in a project every time I need to have a variable in a class that could have simply been declared public...: Give me a break! | |
| Apr 12, 2012 at 4:32 | history | edited | Jim G. | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 14:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot | insert duplicate link | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 14:39 | history | closed | maple_shaft♦ | exact duplicate | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 13:48 | comment | added | Kyralessa | You didn't say what language you're using. The answer to this question depends on the language. Some languages have ways to make this sort of thing easier. For instance, C# has auto-properties, which don't need a private backing variable, and code snippets, which make it easier to quickly create code even if it's repetitive. | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 13:19 | comment | added | ElGringoGrande | If you are loosing interest in a project because of tedious work you better find another profession. A large chunk of real development is tedious. Not just getter/setters/properties. But all kinds of things like coding conventions etc. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 17:32 | comment | added | kevin cline | The answer is completely language-dependent, and also dependent on the clients of the class. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 16:06 | answer | added | T I | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 15:40 | answer | added | back2dos | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 14:07 | answer | added | Rune FS | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 14:05 | answer | added | mouviciel | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 13:35 | answer | added | Pierre | timeline score: -2 | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 16:53 | comment | added | TheLQ | @maartins Big +1 for lombok in Java. I used to be in the same boat of "I hate getters" until I found out I can just type @Data and be done with it | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 14:28 | comment | added | maaartinus | Use lombok.Data or other annotations from it to generate the accessors for you without changing the source code. | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 10:20 | answer | added | jpkroehling | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 9:59 | answer | added | Zachary K | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 9:49 | answer | added | user1249 | timeline score: 10 | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 9:01 | vote | accept | Sal Rahman | ||
| Mar 13, 2011 at 8:54 | answer | added | stijn | timeline score: 20 | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 8:51 | answer | added | KeesDijk | timeline score: 28 | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 8:49 | comment | added | Ed Swangren | In a language like Java where you don't have syntactical support for creating simple accessors there are cases where a public variable makes sense. Sometimes you just know that it will never be more than a simple field. | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 8:29 | comment | added | user7043 | There are reasons to do so in e.g. Java. There is absolutely no reason to in e.g. Python. This is (one minor) part of why I use the latter... | |
| Mar 13, 2011 at 8:24 | history | asked | Sal Rahman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |