Re:Coding Skill and the Decline of Stagnation
by de90 on Friday January 13, 2012 @06:29PM
(#3462869)
What is wrong with different naming conventions for fields vs. properties, and methods? It makes it immediately obvious what is what at a glance.
*Honest question - I first learned programming with C#, and so those conventions seem 'correct' to me.
Re:Coding Skill and the Decline of Stagnation
by masklinn on Saturday January 14, 2012 @04:42AM
(#3463903)
> What is wrong with different naming conventions for fields vs. properties, and methods? It makes it immediately obvious what is what at a glance.
Which is precisely one of the problems of properties in C#, it makes fields and properties look and feel extremely different from the outside which violates the uniform access principle.
As I noted, ideally C# should not have public fields in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned it's quite far from it, because C# still allows public fields, properties and fields are incompatible, properties and methods are separate and Microsoft specifies different naming conventions for fields on one hand and properties & methods on the other.
Perfection is Smalltalk's way of doing it.
And in a syntactic line closer to ALGOL, Ruby is about as good as it gets: no public fields, "properties" are normal methods (setters have a little bit of syntactic sugar, but not much) and auto-generating a bunch of getters, setters or both is a class-level method call.