getFoo1() vs. class.foo1
Steven Taschuk
staschuk at telusplanet.net
Fri Jun 13 21:32:15 EDT 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Jun 13 21:32:15 EDT 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Binding socket to an address
- Next message (by thread): getFoo1() vs. class.foo1
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Quoth Manuel: [...] > class VerySimple: > foo1 = 1 > foo2 = 2 > foo3 = 3 > etc... > > Any professional developers tell me that > I must use get and set (to private variable) > method instead. [...] Java programmers often do this, for two reasons that I know of: 1. Java encourages you -- by design -- to hide your data from other code, for fear that the other code will break you. (Python encourages a more trusting, friendly attitude.) 2. If you use separate get/set methods even for simple data, then you don't have to worry about API compatibility when the day comes that you want to make access to that data more complicated -- say, computing it on the fly instead of storing it, or logging all accesses, or whatever. (In Python this is no longer a big concern, since you can change a simple attribute into a property, leaving your API unchanged.) In short: don't do this in Python. In Java it's okay. -- Steven Taschuk staschuk at telusplanet.net "I tried to be pleasant and accommodating, but my head began to hurt from his banality." -- _Seven_ (1996)
- Previous message (by thread): Binding socket to an address
- Next message (by thread): getFoo1() vs. class.foo1
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list