Re^2: OOP's setter/getter method - is there a way to avoid them?

This (Stop creating mutable objects.)

Imagine:

If your bank account number changed every time you deposited or withdrew money.
You had to buy a new fridge or freezer (or construct a new larder) every time you brought home new food; or consumed some.
If you had to buy a new car every time you need to top up the tank.
(How would that work when you are driving and using fuel?)

Too real-world for OO programmers to consider relevant?

Then think on this:

Every time the balance in an account object changes; something has to 'mutate': either the current balance changes; or you create a new account object, duplicating all the attributes as the existing one except the balance. And then discard (garbage collect) the old one.

"Spooky action at a distance" is a great quote from a great man about a truly spooky phenomena; and utterly bogus when applied to changing the bit-pattern held at a location in DRAM.

Read only objects are akin to, and equally nonsensical, as read-only variables: the triumph of theoretical dogma over pragmatic practice.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^2: OOP's setter/getter method - is there a way to avoid them?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: OOP's setter/getter method - is there a way to avoid them? by karlgoethebier (Abbot) on Oct 28, 2015 at 16:55 UTC
"...the triumph of theoretical dogma over pragmatic practice." I didn't endorse these practices. And i must admit that i don't understand why some folks make such a bohei about. "Don't shoot the messenger." (British author?) Thanks and best regards, Karl ŤThe Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostropheť	[reply]