After reading this piece by Yegor about not using getters and setters, it sounds like something that makes sense to me.
Please note this question is not about whether doing it is better/worst, only if I am implementing it correctly
I was wondering in the following two examples in VBA, if I understand the concept correctly, and if I am applying it correctly.
The standard way would be:
Private userName As String
Public Property Get Name() As String
Name = userName
End Property
Public Property Let Name(rData As String)
userName = rData
End Property
It looks to me his way would be something like this:
Private userName As String
Public Function returnName() As String
returnName = userName
End Function
Public Function giveNewName(newName As String) As String
userName = newName
End Function
From what I understand from the two examples above is that if I wanted to change the format of userName (lets say return it in all-caps), then I can do this with the second method without changing the name of the method that gives the name through - I can just let returnName point to a userNameCaps property. The rest of my code in my program can still stay the same and point to the method userName.
But if I want to do this with the first example, I can make a new property, but then have to change my code everywhere in the program as well to point to the new property... is that correct?
In other words, in the first example the API gets info from a property, and in the second example the API gets info from a method.
Your 2nd snippet is neither idiomatic nor equivalent. That article you link to, is about Java, a language which has no concept whatsoever of object properties - getFoo/setFoo is a mere convention in Java.
In VBA this:
Private userName As String
Public Property Get Name() As String
Name = userName
End Property
Public Property Let Name(rData As String)
userName = rData
End Property
Is ultimately equivalent to this:
Public UserName As String
Not convinced? Add such a public field to a class module, say, Class1. Then add a new class module and add this:
Implements Class1
The compiler will force you to implement a Property Get and a Property Let member, so that the Class1 interface contract can be fulfilled.
So why bother with properties then? Properties are a tool, to help with encapsulation.
Option Explicit
Private Type TSomething
Foo As Long
End Type
Private this As TSomething
Public Property Get Foo() As Long
Foo = this.Foo
End Property
Public Property Let Foo(ByVal value As Long)
If value <= 0 Then Err.Raise 5
this.Foo = value
End Property
Now if you try to assign Foo with a negative value, you'll get a runtime error: the property is encapsulating an internal state that only the class knows and is able to mutate: calling code doesn't see or know about the encapsulated value - all it knows is that Foo is a read/write property. The validation logic in the "setter" ensures the object is in a consistent state at all times.
If you want to break down a property into methods, then you need a Function for the getter, and assignment would be a Sub not a Function. In fact, Rubberduck would tell you that there's a problem with the return value of giveNewName being never assigned: that's a much worse code smell than "OMG you're using properties!".
Functions return a value. Subs/methods do something - in the case of an object/class, that something might imply mutating internal state.
But by avoiding Property Let just because some Java guy said getters & setters are evil, you're just making your VBA API more cluttered than it needs to be - because VBA understands properties, and Java does not. C# and VB.NET do however, so if anything the principles of these languages would be much more readily applicable to VBA than Java's, at least with regards to properties. See Property vs Method.
FWIW public member names in VB would be PascalCase by convention. camelCase public member names are a Java thing. Notice how everything in the standard libraries starts with a Capital first letter?
It seems to me that you've just given the property accessors new names. They are functionally identical.
I think the idea of not using getters/setters implies that you don't try to externally modify an object's state - because if you do, the object is not much more than a user-defined type, a simple collection of data. Objects/Classes should be defined by their behavior. The data they contain should only be there to enable/support that behavior.
That means you don't tell the object how it has to be or what data you want it to hold. You tell it what you want it to do or what is happening to it. The object itself then decides how to modify its state.
To me it seems your example class is a little too simple to work as an example. It's not clear what the intended purpose is: Currently you'd probably better off just using a variable UserName instead.
Have a look at this answer to a related question - I think it provides a good example.
Regarding your edit:
From what I understand from the two examples above is that if I wanted
to change the format of userName (lets say return it in all-caps),
then I can do this with the second method without changing the name of
the method that gives the name through - I can just let returnName
point to a userNameCaps property. The rest of my code in my program
can still stay the same and point to the method iserName.
But if I want to do this with the first example, I can make a new
property, but then have to change my code everywhere in the program as
well to point to the new property... is that correct?
Actually, what you're describing here, is possible in both approaches. You can have a property
Public Property Get Name() As String
' possibly more code here...
Name = UCase(UserName)
End Property
or an equivalent function
Public Function Name() As String
' possibly more code here...
Name = UCase(UserName)
End Function
As long as you only change the property/function body, no external code needs to be adapted. Keep the property's/function's signature (the first line, including the Public statement, its name, its type and the order and type of its parameters) unchanged and you should not need to change anything outside the class to accommodate.
The Java article is making some sort of philosophic design stance that is not limited to Java: The general advise is to severely limit any details on how a class is implemented to avoid making one's code harder to maintain. Putting such advice into VBA terms isn't irrelevant.
Microsoft popularized the idea of a Property that is in fact a method (or two) which masquerade as a field (i.e. any garden-variety variable). It is a neat-and-tidy way to package up a getter and setter together. Beyond that, really, behind the scenes it's still just a set of functions or subroutines that perform as accessors for your class.
Understand that VBA does not do classes, but it does do interfaces. That's what a "Class Module" is: An interface to an (anonymous) class. When you say Dim o As New MyClassModule, VBA calls some factory function which returns an instance of the class that goes with MyClassModule. From that point, o references the interface (which in turn is wired into the instance). As #Mathieu Guindon has demonstrated, Public UserName As String inside a class module really becomes a Property behind the scenes anyway. Why? Because a Class Module is an interface, and an interface is a set of (pointers to) functions and subroutines.
As for the philosophic design stance, the really big idea here is not to make too many promises. If UserName is a String, it must always remain a String. Furthermore, it must always be available - you cannot remove it from future versions of your class! UserName might not be the best example here (afterall, why wouldn't a String cover all needs? for what reason might UserName become superfluous?). But it does happen that what seemed like a good idea at the time the class was being made turns into a big goof. Imagine a Public TwiddlePuff As Integer (or instead getTwiddlePuff() As Integer and setTwiddlePuff(value As Integer)) only to find out (much later on!) that Integer isn't sufficient anymore, maybe it should have been Long. Or maybe a Double. If you try to change TwiddlePuff now, anything compiled back when it was Integer will likely break. So maybe people making new code will be fine, and maybe it's mostly the folks who still need to use some of the old code who are now stuck with a problem.
And what if TwiddlePuff turned out to be a really big design mistake, that it should not have been there in the first place? Well, removing it brings its own set of headaches. If TwiddlePuff was used at all elsewhere, that means some folks may have a big refactoring job on their hands. And that might not be the worst of it - if your code compiles to native binaries especially, that makes for a really big mess, since an interface is about a set of function pointers layed out and ordered in a very specific way.
Too reiterate, do not make too many promises. Think through on what you will share with others. Properties-getters-setters-accessors are okay, but must be used thoughtfully and sparingly. All of that above is important if what you are making is code that you are going to share with others, and others will take it and use it as part of a larger system of code, and it may be that these others intend to share their larger systems of code with yet even more people who will use that in their even larger systems of code.
That right there is probably why hiding implementation details to the greatest extent possible is regarded as fundamental to object oriented programming.
Related
I've read a lot of articles about "public vs getter/setter", but I still wonder if there is any good part about public variable.
Or the question is:
If you're going to make a new awesome programming languange, are you still going to support public variable and why??
I agree with almost everything that's been said by everyone else, but wanted to add this:
Public isn't automatically bad. Public is bad if you're writing an Object Class. Data Classes are just fine. There's nothing wrong with this class:
public class CommentRecord
{
public int id;
public string comment;
}
... why? Because the class isn't using the variables for anything. It's just a data object - it's meant to be just a simple data repository.
But there's absolutely something wrong with this class:
public class CommentRecord
{
public int id;
public string comment;
public void UpdateInSQL()
{
// code to update the SQL table for the row with commentID = this.id
// and set its UserComment column to this.comment
}
}
... why is this bad? Because it's not a data class. It's a class that actually does stuff with its variables - and because of that, making them public forces the person using the class to know the internals of the class. The person using it needs to know "If I want to update the comment, I have to change the public variable, but not change the id, then call the UpdateInSQL() method." Worse, if they screw up, they use the class in a way it wasn't intended and in a way that'll cause unforseen consequences down the line!
If you want to get some more info on this, take a look at Clean Code by Robert Martin, Chapter 6, on "Data/Object Anti-Symmetry"
A public variable essentially means you have a global accessible/changeable variable within the scope of an object. Is there really a use case for this?
Take this example: you have a class DatabaseQueryHandler which has a variable databaseAccessor. Under what circumstances would you want this variable to be:
Publicly accessible (i.e. gettable)
Publicly settable
Option #1 I can think of a few - you may want to get the last insert ID after an insert operation, you may want to check any errors the last query generated, commit or rollback transactions, etc., and it might make more logical sense to have these methods written in the class DatabaseAccessor than DatabaseQueryHandler.
Option #2 is less desirable, especially if you are doing OOP and abiding by SOLID principles, in particular regards to the ISP and DIP principles. In that case, when would you want to set the variable databaseAccessor in DatabaseQueryHandler? Probably on construction only, and never at any time after that. You probably also want it type-hinted at the interface level as well, so that you can code to interfaces. Also, why would you need an arbitrary object to be able to alter the database accessor? What happens if Foo changes the variable DatabaseQueryHandler->databaseAccessor to be NULL and then Bar tries to call DatabaseQueryHandler->databaseAccessor->beginTransaction()?
I'm just giving one example here, and it is by no means bullet proof. I program in PHP (dodges the hurled rotten fruit) and take OOP and SOLID very seriously given the looseness of the language. I'm sure there will be arguments on both sides of the fence, but I would say that if you're considering using a public class variable, instead consider what actually needs to access it, and how that variable is to be used. In most cases the functionality can be exposed via public methods without allowing unexpected alteration of the variable type.
Simple answer is: yes, they are bad. There are many reasons to that like coupling and unmaintanable code. In practice you should not use them. In OOP the public variable alternative is Singleton, which is considered a bad pracitce. Check out here.
It has a lot to do with encapsulation. You don't want your variable to be accessed anyhow. Other languages like iOS (objective-c) use properties:
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSArray* array;
then the compiler will generate the instance variable with it's getter and setter implicitly. In this case there is no need to use a variable (though other developers still prefer to use variables). You can then make this property public by declaring it in the .h file or private by declaring it in the .m file.
I'm trying to rebuild some old QBASIC (yeah, you read that right) programs for use on more modern systems (because for some reason kids these days don't like DOS).
I understand the basic principles of classes and objects (I think) but I'm obviously missing something.
I have a number of instruments which are controlled using GPIB, using VISA COM libraries. I can make it work, but the code is very ugly :(
In order to use an instrument, I have the following in my Public Class Main:
Public ioMgr As Ivi.Visa.Interop.ResourceManager
Dim myInstrument As New Ivi.Visa.Interop.FormattedIO488
Dim myInstOpen As Boolean
Then, when I come to initializing the instrument (in the 'Initialize' button click sub), I use:
Try
myInstrument.IO = ioMgr.Open("GPIB0::17")
Catch exOpen As System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException
myInstOpen = False
End Try
Pretty straightforward stuff; if the instrument can't be opened at address 17 on GPIB0, it throws an exception, which gets caught and sets the 'myInstOpen' flag to false.
Then, I can communicate with the instrument using commands from the Ivi.Visa.Interop.FormattedIO488 interface such as:
myInstrument.IO.ReadSTB()
result = myInstrument.ReadString()
myInstrument.WriteString("GPIB Command Here")
And all of it works.
What I want to do is, create a generic 'Instrument' class, that allows me access to all the functions from the Ivi.Visa.Interop.FormattedIO488 interface, and from the Ivi.Visa.Interop.ResourceManager interface, but also allows me to build my own class.
For instance:
Public Class GPIBInst
Implements Ivi.Visa.Interop.FormattedIO488
Public Address As Integer
Public Sub setAddress(ByVal Addr As Integer)
Address = Addr
End Sub
Public Function getAddress() As Integer
Return Address
End Function
Public Function readIO() As String
Dim Data As String = me.ReadString()
Dim Result As String = mid(Data,2,7)
Return Result
End Function
End Class
This would allow me to use the functions from the interface, but also customize the instruments for other useful things inside the program. For instance, the GPIBInst.Address needs to be used in other places, and the GPIBInst.readIO() can be used instead of just the generic ReadString() so that I can customize the output a little.
BUT when I try to do this, I can't inherit from the interface (because it's an interface) and I can't implement the interface because it says my class needs to implement every single function which the interface provides. I don't want all these functions, and also, I can't work out how to write them all into my class anyway (they have heaps of random stuff in them which I don't understand lol).
If anyone can see where I'm coming from and can offer some advice, I'd really appreciate it =)
An interface is supposed to represent a coherent set of functionality; implementing part of it but not all of it violates the intent of the concept. That being said, it is very common for APIs in object-oriented languages that wrap non-OO systems to just define one massive interface rather than breaking the functionality into logical sub-groups and defining an interface for each group. If that is your circumstance, and you want to implement the interface, you have no choice but to implement every method from the interface (although you can throw a NotImplementException for any method that you don't want to fully implement, as long as that will not prevent your class from functioning properly).
This question already has answers here:
Are static local variables bad practice?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Consider the following functionally two code snippets in a single-threaded environment. Assuming there are no other methods in Foo I believe these are functionally identical.
Class Foo
Private _Bar As Bar
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar As Bar
Get
If IsNothing(_Bar) Then
_Bar = New Bar
End If
Return _Bar
End Get
End Property
End Class
And
Class Foo
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar2 As Bar
Get
Static _Bar As New Bar
Return _Bar
End Get
End Property
End Class
Today I was challenged on code following the 2nd method because "the New will be called each time". I already know that is false, but the primary objection was with regards to the use of Static. I found several references to Static variables indicating that they may be dangerous, but they were all talking about Java. However, I was not able to find any good explanations as to why.
How are these two methods different? Is the 2nd method dangerous? If so, why?
Static in VB.Net is not that same as static in Java, C#, C, or C++. VB.Net's analog to that construct is Shared. The documentation on the Static keyword is here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
In particular, I'd like to point out this snippet:
Behavior
When you declare a static variable in a Shared procedure, only one copy of the static variable is available for the whole application. You call a Shared procedure by using the class name, not a variable that points to an instance of the class.
When you declare a static variable in a procedure that isn't Shared, only one copy of the variable is available for each instance of the class. You call a non-shared procedure by using a variable that points to a specific instance of the class.
It's likely the objection comes from believing that Static always behaves like the first paragraph, even in instance methods, when we can see here that it's clearly documented that this is not the case.
Instead, Static allows you to declare a variable whose lifetime-scope is that of the class instance, but whose access-scope is limited to a single method. It's a way to narrow the potential scope of a variable, and therefore is a good thing. Additionally, variables declared as Static are rewritten by the compiler to be protected via the Monitor class (at least for the Shared version), giving them a measure of thread-safety. In other words, a variable declared as Static is more likely to have any needed locking done verses a similar class-scoped variable.
In this particular case, though, I fail to see the point. You don't really gain anything beyond an auto-implemented property like this:
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar2 As New Bar()
This probably is confusing the VB.net concepts of Static and Shared because some languages use the keyword Static to mean what VB uses Shared for: a variable/field/property/method that is shared or common to all instances of a class.
But Static doesn't mean that in VB. Instead it means a routine-local variable that persists beyond the invocation of the routine (i.e., its lifetime is object-scoped rather than routine invocation-scoped).
REF: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
So in VB, Static means "routine-scoped visibility, object-scoped lifetime".
Whereas Shared means "class-scoped visibilty, class/program-scoped lifetime".
I would avoid the second approach if for no other reason than the fact that C and C# have a static keyword whose meaning is totally different from that of the VB.NET Static keyword. I generally dislike language features which look like features of other languages but aren't. If it's necessary to use a language feature despite its unfortunate resemblance to the other language's feature, I'll use it, but the VB.NET static keyword doesn't really add much here. Effectively, it asks the compiler to make the variable Private field, give it an arbitrary name which differs from that of any other field, and replace all references to the variable's given name within the method with references to the invented name.
Conceptually, use of such "localized" fields may be regarded as dubious because while one may expect that a field will only need to be used within one method, that may turn out not to be true. I wouldn't worry too much about that issue in vb.net, however, because a Static variable may easily be turned into an ordinary private field if the need arises. If when that need does arise a field exists with the same name, one may easily rename the Static variable before moving it.
Sorry if this is a bit random, but is it good practice to give all fields of a class a value when the class is instanciated? I'm just wondering if its better practice to have a constuctor that takes no parameters and gives all the fields default values, or whether fields that have values should be assigned and others left alone until required?
I hope that makes sense,
Becky
I don't know if it makes a performance difference or not, but any fields for which you have explicit default values I personally prefer to assign them in the declarations, as so:
Public Class MyClass
Private pIsDirty As Boolean = False
Private pDated as Date = Now()
End Class
Keep in mind most "simple" types like boolean, integer, etc. auto-default and don't NEED to be initialized, but I show that here as example and sometimes for clarity you want it anyway. Additionally since any classes I write are all for internal use (we don't sell any code objects for public use) I can be assured to the consumer of my classes. So I generally just write a minimal constructor (if a non-default one is needed) that only takes the primary fields, and spin up any additional values with the new With syntax in VB as so:
Dim myObj = New SomeClass() With { .Prop1 = "value", .Prop2 = Now() }
Your class' constructor should accept enough parameters to be in an usable state.
You can get the same functionality you seem to be looking for by using Optional Parameters in your constructor.
That way you can set by name just the properties that you have to, and leave the rest with default values until you need to change them.
Sub Notify(ByVal Company As String, Optional ByVal Office As String = "QJZ")
If Office = "QJZ" Then
Debug.WriteLine("Office not supplied -- notifying Headquarters")
Office = "Headquarters"
End If
' Code to notify headquarters or specified office.
End Sub
Remember that optional parameters must be after all non optional parameters.
Ideal practice is to have an object in a usable state as soon as the constructor returns. This reduces errors whereby a partially 'ready' object is inadvertently used.
It depends. How do you intend to use the class? What is the purpose of the class? (i.e. is it an entity class for database modeling or some other class)
I always make my entity classes with nullable properties that are all null when the class is instanced with a constructor that takes no parameter. Then when I call .Load I know all properties reflect the database.
Adding a constructor that calls .Load and assigns all of the properties known values from the database would be a feasible route also.
If you are not referring to an entity modeling class then it really depends on your usage of the class.
My personal preference is to assign all properties a known value (from constructor parameters) and therefore the class is in a known - neutral state.
When inside a class you have a private fiels and expose that field on a public property, which one should I use from inside the class?
Below you is an example on what I am trying to find out.
Should manioulate the Private Field _Counter or the Property Counter?
Public Class Test
Private _Counter As Integer
Public Property Counter() As Integer
Get
Return _Counter
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
_Counter = value
End Set
End Property
Private Sub Dosomething()
'What is the best practice?
'Direct access to private field or property?
'On SET
_Counter += 1
'OR
Me.Counter += 1
'On Get
Console.WriteLine(_Counter)
Console.WriteLine(Me.Counter)
End Sub
End Class
Thanks in advance for the help.
Edu
IMO you should be using the Property accessor whenever possible. This is because you don't have to worry about any internal logic that might be available when you have an a property.
A good example of where this happens is in the code behind in a Linq DataContext.
check this out...
[Column(Storage="_ReviewType", DbType="TinyInt NOT NULL")]
public byte ReviewType
{
get
{
return this._ReviewType;
}
set
{
if ((this._ReviewType != value))
{
this.OnReviewTypeChanging(value);
this.SendPropertyChanging();
this._ReviewType = value;
this.SendPropertyChanged("ReviewType");
this.OnReviewTypeChanged();
}
}
}
Notice all that logic in the 'setter'?
This is why it's important to start getting into the practice of calling your Properties instead of fields, IMO.
Thank you all for the answers and suggestions.
After considering all the suggestions here plus other researches it is my impression that for this situation on Private Field versus Assessor it is more of a personal choice. So basically the most important is that no matter what you choose be consistent.
That said; my personal rule is leaning towards this:
Access your private fields directly.
If accessing accessors use the keyword ME. to improve readability
Use the accessor only if it implements vital logic logic that also applies to private access. This way you know that if you are using the accessor it is because there is "something else to it"
Avoid using Protected Fields. Derived classes should always use the accessor, never direct access to the field.
Let me know what you think.
SideNote:
After this I think we are missing a new scope for the class level fields. A keyword like “Restricted” where this field could only be accessed from its getter/setter. This way you always access directly the private fields, but if you need to make sure certain field can only be accessed by its accessor that you change the Private to Restricted. (how about "Restricted , RestrictedRead and RestrictedWrite"?)
In my opinion, using a public accessor internally is over-encapsulation: it blurs the code. With such an approach, otherwise simple operations invoke accessors that may contain more complex logic, so it's harder to analyze the code of the operations.
In my programming experience, I've rarely had a situation when it would help much. Instead, I prefer to access fields directly, and only if it's really needed, to abstract the access by creating a private accessor, which can be used by both the public accessor and other functions. The rationale is that if you need to attach some special logic in the public accessor, chances are that the logic may not be the same for internal access.
Note also that most modern IDEs (like Eclipse) allow to see immediately all references to a private field, and to refactor the code to use a function instead of a direct access.
I always use the property accessors, because the I am safe in case I add logic in the getter or setter in the future, knowing for sure that no code bypasses it.
I prefer to use the property whenever possible. This gives you the flexibility in the future to modify what the property returns/sets without having to go through and find all the locations that were using the private variable.
Use the private field because you are not doing something in specific in the setter.
I would also recommend to remove the property-setter, this way you force the state of the counter to be set by the given method DoSomething()
Depending on the situation, it may be preferable to allow the direct modification of a field on a class only privately, and or through some method which associates semantics with the modification. This way it becomes easier to reason about this class and that particular value, since you can be certain that its modified only in a certain way. Moreover, at some point, an action such as incrementing and int may have additional required consequences at which point it makes more sense to expose access to it through methods.
If you are worried about the performance overhead of calling property accessors when they just go directly to the field, don't. Most compilers will inline this sort of thing, giving you effectively the same performance. At least, you're pretty unlikely to need the extra nanoseconds of time you might gain by going directly to the field.
It's better to stick with property accessors because a) you can be very consistent in all of your code which makes it more maintainble and b) you get the benefits pointed out by others here.
Also, I don't usually add the Me. (or this.) keywords, unless there's a scope problem (which I try to avoid by choosing my identifiers carefully). I don't get confused by this because my functions and subs are never so long that I'm not sure whether I am working with a local (stack-based) variable or a member of the class. When they get too long to tell easily, I refactor.
Original poster is EXACTLY correct.
1) Access your private fields directly.
Makes refactoring easier.
2) If accessing accessors use the keyword ME. to improve readability
explicitly listing scope requires less thinking by reader
3) Use the accessor only if it implements vital logic logic that also applies to private access. This way you know that if you are using the accessor it is because there is “something else to it”
this is the only reason to violate rule #1.
4) Avoid using Protected Fields. Derived classes should always use the accessor, never direct access to the field.