Is there any point in repeating this pattern for every property in JavaScript?
class Thing {
get myProp() {
return this._myProp;
}
set myProp(value) {
this._myProp = value;
}
}
I understand that getters/setters can be useful if you're doing additional work in the methods, but recreating the basic functionality here seems like needless repetition. If I instantiate, I can still manipulate the backing property (._myProp) directly, so I feel like I could just as easily leave these out and perform my assignment and access in the more typical, ad-hoc fashion.
I suppose you could argue that defining the interface this way (with the underscore-prefixed property name) signals to users that it's not meant to manipulate the property, but that seems like a flimsy reason for potentially dozens of these.
In compiled languages, it's common for people to do this. This is because in those languages, assigning to a field and invoking a setter may be identical to the programmer, but they compile to two completely different operations.
If I wanted to add a side effect for setting a field in a C# class, for example, and that field was being set directly instead of through a setter? Changing it to a setter would cause some issues. I wouldn't have to rewrite any of the consuming code, but I would have to recompile all of it. This is, of course, a huge problem if your public releases are compiled.
JavaScript is subject to no such considerations, though, so making everything into a getter/setter prematurely is kind of silly. If you see someone doing this, more than likely you're dealing with someone who learned the convention from another language and carried it into JavaScript, without thinking a whole lot about why.
Using an accessor property in the fashion you describe (set and retrieve a "background" data property) is virtually semantically identical to using a data property directly. There are some differences: the accessor property will exist on instance's prototype, rather than on the instance directly (though the instance will have the "background" data property), but this won't really affect anything unless you are doing advanced introspection on your class instances.
The only advantage is ease of modifying the code if you want to introduce more sophisticated accessor behavior in the future. If you forsee a need to add accessor behavior, use this pattern to save yourself time in the future.
Property accessors are useful to provide side effects or change original behaviour:
class Thing {
get myProp() {
console.log('myProp was read');
return this._myProp;
}
set myProp(value) {
if (!value)
throw new Error('myProp cannot be falsy');
this._myProp = value;
}
}
There is no point in myProp getter/setter pure abstraction:
class Thing {
get myProp() {
return this._myProp;
}
set myProp(value) {
this._myProp = value;
}
}
If I instantiate, I can still manipulate the backing property
(._myProp) directly,
If private states are what you are looking for you can still use a weak map.
(function(scope) {
"use strict";
const prop = new WeakMap();
scope.Foo = class {
constructor() {
prop.set(this, {});
Object.seal(this);
}
get bar() {
return prop.get(this)._bar;
}
set bar(value) {
return prop.get(this)._bar = value;
}
}
}(this))
const f = new Foo;
f.bar = "bar";
f._bar = "_bar";
console.log(f.bar);
console.log(f._bar);
get and setters are also useful when implementing MVC, you can trigger events on property change.
(function(scope) {
"use strict";
const prop = new WeakMap();
scope.Foo = class {
constructor() {
prop.set(this, {});
prop.get(this)._target = new EventTarget
Object.seal(this);
}
get bar() {
return prop.get(this)._bar;
}
set bar(value) {
prop.get(this)._bar = value;
prop.get(this)._target.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent('change', {
detail: value
}));
}
addEventListener(event, listener) {
prop.get(this)._target.addEventListener(event, listener)
}
}
}(this))
const f = new Foo;
f.addEventListener('change', function(event) {
console.log("changed!", event.detail);
});
f.bar = "bar";
