|
|
|
|
|
|
by revvx
2620 days ago
|
|
|
It's not exactly a bad thing, it's just that you're using a hammer (class) when what you actually need is a screwdriver (struct/record). Abusing getters/setters is breaking encapsulation (I said abusing, light use is ok). If you're just going to expose all the innards of the class, why start with a Class? The whole point of object orientation to put data and behavior together. That's probably the only thing that both the C++/Java and the Smalltalk camp agrees on. Separating data and the behavior into two different classes breaks that. You're effectively making two classes, each with "half of a responsibility". I can argue that this breaks SRP and the Demeter principle in one go. Another thing: Abuse of getters/setters is often a symptom of procedural code disguised as OOP code. If you're not going to use what is probably the single biggest advantages of OOP, why use it at all? - Here's an answer that elaborates on this that I like: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2180... |
|
|
May I politely disagree based on my long-ago experience with dylan, which has multi-methods (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimethods>). This allowed the action on the data (the methods) to be defined separate from the data. I strongly feel that it was OO done right, and it felt right. You can read about it on the wiki link but it likely won't click until you play with it.
I'd like to give an example but it's too long ago and I don't have any to hand, sorry.