Public Fields versus Automatic Properties

Question

We're often told we should protect encapsulation by making getter and setter methods (properties in C#) for class fields, instead of exposing the fields to the outside world.

But there are many times when a field is just there to hold a value and doesn't require any computation to get or set. For these we would all do this number:

public class Book
{
    private string _title;

    public string Title
    {
          get => _title; 
          set => _title = value;
    }
}

Well, I have a confession, I couldn't bear writing all that (really, it wasn't having to write it, it was having to look at it), so I went rogue and used public fields.

Then along comes C# 3.0 and I see they added automatic properties:

public class Book
{
    public string Title { get; set; } 
}

Which is tidier, and I'm thankful for it, but really, what's so different than just making a public field?

public class Book
{
    public string Title;
}

Answer 1

Also fields don't work well with serialization. For example in JSON: System.Text.Json ignores public fields, serializing properties only.

Answer 2

For me, the absolute deal breaker for not using public fields was the lack of IntelliSense, showing the references:

Which is not available for fields.

Answer 3

Trivial properties like these make me sad. They are the worst kind of cargo culting and the hatred for public fields in C# needs to stop. The biggest argument against public fields is future-proofing: If you later decide you need to add extra logic to the getter and setter, then you will have to do a huge refactor in any other code that uses the field. This is certainly true in other languages like C++ and Java where the semantics for calling a getter and setter method are very different from those for setting and getting a field. However, in C#, the semantics for accessing a property are exactly the same as those for accessing a field, so 99% of your code should be completely unaffected by this.

The one example I have seen of changing a field into a property actually being a breaking change at the source level is something like:

    TryGetTitle(out book.Title); // requires a variable

To this I have to ask, why TF are you passing some other class's field as a reference? Depending on that not being a property seems like the real coding failure here. Assuming that you can directly write to data in another class that you know nothing about is bad practice. Make your own local variable and set book.Title from that. Any code that does something like this deserves to break.

Other arguments I have seen against it:

• Changing a field to a property breaks binary compatibility and requires any code that uses it to be recompiled: This is a concern iff you are writing code for distribution as a closed-source library. In that case, yes, make sure none of your user-facing classes have public fields and use trivial properties as needed. If however you are like 99% of C# developers and writing code purely for internal consumption within your project, then why is recompilation a big concern? Just about any other change you make is going to require recompilation too, and so what if it does? Last I checked, it is no longer 1995, we have fast computers with fast compilers and incremental linkers, even larger recompilations shouldn't need more than a few minutes, and it has been quite some time since I have been able to use "my code's compiling" as an excuse for swordfighting through the office.
• You can't databind against a variable: Great, when you need to do that, make it into a property.
• Properties have features that make them better for debugging like reflection and setting breakpoints: Great, one you need to use one of those things, make it into a property. When you're done debugging and ready to release, if you don't still need those functionalities, change it back into a field.
• Properties allow you to override behavior in derived classes: Great, if you are making a base class where you think such a scenario is likely, then make the appropriate members into properties. If you're not sure, leave it as a field and you can change it later. Yes, that will probably require some recompilation, but again, so what?

So in summary, yes there are some legitimate uses for trivial properties, but unless you are making a closed source library for public release, fields are easy enough to convert into properties when needed, and an irrational fear of public fields is just some object oriented dogma that we would do well to rid ourselves of.

Answer 4

One thing you can do with Fields but not with Properties (or didn't used to be able to ... I'll come to that in a moment) is that Fields can be designated as readonly whereas Properties cannot. So Fields give you a clear way of indicating your intention that a variable is there to be set (from within the constructor) at object-instantiation time only and should not be changed thereafter. Yes, you can set a Property to have a private setter, but that just says "this is not to be changed from outside the class", which is not the same as "this is not to be changed after instantiation" - you can still change it post-instantiation from within the class. And yes you can set the backing field of your property to be readonly, but that moves post-instantiation attempts to change it to being run-time errors rather than compile-time errors. So readonly Fields did something useful which Properties cannot.

However, that changes with C# 9, whereby we get this helpful syntax for Properties:

public string Height { get; init; }

which says "this can get used from outside of the class but it may only be set when the object is initialized", whereupon the readonly advantage of Fields disappears.

Answer 5

My pov after did some researches

1. Validation.
2. Allow overriding the accessor to change the behaviour of a property.
3. Debugging purpose. We'll be able to know when and what the property change by setting a breakpoint in the accessor.
4. We can have a field set-only. For instance, public set() and private get(). This is not possible with the public field.

It really gives us more possibility and extensibility.

Answer 6

One thing I find very useful as well as all the code and testing reasons is that if it is a property vs a field is that the Visual Studio IDE shows you the references for a property but not a field.

Answer 7

In a related question I had some time ago, there was a link to a posting on Jeff's blog, explaining some differences.

Properties vs. Public Variables

• Reflection works differently on variables vs. properties, so if you rely on reflection, it's easier to use all properties.
• You can't databind against a variable.

• Changing a variable to a property is a breaking change. For example:

  TryGetTitle(out book.Title); // requires a variable
  

Answer 8

Another advantage of auto-implemented properties over public fields is that you can make set accessors private or protected, providing the class of objects where it was defined better control than that of public fields.

Answer 9

A huge difference that is often overlooked and is not mentioned in any other answer: overriding. You can declare properties virtual and override them whereas you cannot do the same for public member fields.

Answer 10

There is nothing wrong in making a field public. But remember creating getter/setter with private fields is no encapsulation. IMO, If you do not care about other features of a Property, you might as well make it public.

Answer 11

Just because no one mentioned it: You can't define fields on Interfaces. So, if you have to implement a specific interface which defines properties, auto-properties sometimes are a really nice feature.

Answer 12

If you decide later to check that the title is unique, by comparing to a collection or a database, you can do that in the property without changing any code that depends on it.

If you go with just a public attribute then you will have less flexibility.

The extra flexibility without breaking the contract is what is most important to me about using properties, and, until I actually need the flexibility, auto-generation makes the most sense.

Answer 13

Ignoring the API issues, the thing I find most valuable about using a property is debugging.

The CLR debugger does not support data break points (most native debuggers do). Hence it's not possible to set a break point on the read or write of a particular field on a class. This is very limiting in certain debugging scenarios.

Because properties are implemented as very thin methods, it is possible to set breakpoints on the read and write of their values. This gives them a big leg up over fields.

Answer 14

It's all about versioning and API stability. There is no difference, in version 1 - but later, if you decide you need to make this a property with some type of error checking in version 2, you don't have to change your API- no code changes, anywhere, other than the definition of the property.

Answer 15

Changing from a field to a property breaks the contract (e.g. requires all referencing code to be recompiled). So when you have an interaction point with other classes - any public (and generally protected) member, you want to plan for future growth. Do so by always using properties.

It's nothing to make it an auto-property today, and 3 months down the line realize you want to make it lazy-loaded, and put a null check in the getter. If you had used a field, this is a recompile change at best and impossible at worst, depending on who & what else relies on your assemblies.