Re^2: OOP's setter/getter method - is there a way to avoid them?

[BrowserUk]

This (Stop creating mutable objects.)

Imagine:

1. If your bank account number changed every time you deposited or withdrew money.
2. You had to buy a new fridge or freezer (or construct a new larder) every time you brought home new food; or consumed some.
3. If you had to buy a new car every time you need to top up the tank.

   (How would that work when you are driving and using fuel?)

Too real-world for OO programmers to consider relevant?

Then think on this:

Every time the balance in an account object changes; something has to 'mutate': either the current balance changes; or you create a new account object, duplicating all the attributes as the existing one except the balance. And then discard (garbage collect) the old one.

"Spooky action at a distance" is a great quote from a great man about a truly spooky phenomena; and utterly bogus when applied to changing the bit-pattern held at a location in DRAM.

Read only objects are akin to, and equally nonsensical, as read-only variables: the triumph of theoretical dogma over pragmatic practice.

[karlgoethebier]

"...the triumph of theoretical dogma over pragmatic practice."

I didn't endorse these practices.

And i must admit that i don't understand why some folks make such a bohei about.

"Don't shoot the messenger." (British author?)

Thanks and best regards, Karl