I find setters/getters are generally an antipattern because they obfuscate behavior. When you access a field you know what it looks like, but if you pass it through some implicit transformation in a getter then you have to know what that was.
Yeah. I can understand the use case when it’s something relating to keeping simple state in sync by replacing it with derived state. But this particular case was flushing a cache after each get, which made each get of the property non-deterministic based on the class’s state.
I find setters/getters are generally an antipattern because they obfuscate behavior. When you access a field you know what it looks like, but if you pass it through some implicit transformation in a getter then you have to know what that was.
Yeah. I can understand the use case when it’s something relating to keeping simple state in sync by replacing it with derived state. But this particular case was flushing a cache after each get, which made each get of the property non-deterministic based on the class’s state.
lol yeah that sounds like a nightmare