> If you have a mutable class, and you're modifying its fields, you're doing it for a reason, right? Often it's part of a larger operation. So why not name the method that mutates the field after that reason. I got away from thinking about "I am altering the internal representation of this struct + vtable" to "I am sending a message to this opaque thing and I don't really care how it's done when I'm outside the black box".

> > but "setters are always bad and i don't understand why anyone would ever use them" seems like a needlessly hard-line sentiment, IMO.

> I have a strong opinion because I read some compelling arguments, thought about a lot, stopped using setters, and the quality of my code improved. I don't see a need to moderate my opinions on programming, especially when that's what I really think. Again, happy to be shown a great counter example and admit I was wrong.

that's all fair. i think we might actually agree more than disagree. all your arguments are compelling, and i could see myself holding a similar opinion after giving the matter more thought.