We Keep Coding

What's the reason for peoples to use properties with get; set; instead of fields?

I often see properties in classes, instead of fields. It looks like that:
class TestClass
{
public ulong Id { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
}
Why peoples do this? They could use fields instead. I see at least single pro there - we can pass fields with ref keyword into functions. Is there any pro for properties or other reasons to use them like that?

The main reason is encapsulation - the value can only be changed trough the corresponding properties, and this continues to be the case even if you later decide that the property shouldn't just return a value. Maybe you find that you'll want to fire an event when a value changes? If you've got a property, that's very easy. If you've got a public field, you need to make a breaking change.
In addition, properties can be virtual or declared in interfaces. And they can be declared read-only.
Oh, and it helps in debugging: You can set a breakpoint on the "set", if you want to know who is changing your value (unexpectedly).

People use properties instead of fields mainly due to coding conventions. If it doesn't perform any actual encapsulation (in case of POCO), then there's not much of a difference in C#. Most of the times fields could be used instead of properties with no consequences whatsoever.
// This:
public string MyValue;
// Could be later on changed to this:
public string MyValue { get; set; }
// With no compatibility issues.
Although it's interesting to speculate why conventions are the way they are. In C# difference between properties and fields is mostly hidden from consumer standpoint. This is not necessarily the case in older languages. I.e. in Java you had to write getter and setter methods explicitly. So if you have a field in Java, and now you decide that you want to encapsulate it, then you would need to go over all usages of that field and use getters and setters instead. This could be even a bigger issue if you use dynamic library linking (that used to be popular style of deployment some time ago). Because of this it was easier to encapsulate fields from the start, so you wouldn't have backwards compatibility issues in the future. Naturally these conventions spread to other languages as well.

C# automatic properties vs regular local variables [duplicate]

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;
}

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My pov after did some researches
Validation.
Allow overriding the accessor to change the behaviour of a property.
Debugging purpose. We'll be able to know when and what the property change by setting a breakpoint in the accessor.
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.

Properties vs. Fields: Need help grasping the uses of Properties over Fields

First off, I have read through a list of postings on this topic and I don't feel I have grasped properties because of what I had come to understand about encapsulation and field modifiers (private, public..ect).
One of the main aspects of C# that I have come to learn is the importance of data protection within your code by the use of encapsulation. I 'thought' I understood that to be because of the ability of the use of the modifiers (private, public, internal, protected). However, after learning about properties I am sort of torn in understanding not only properties uses, but the overall importance/ability of data protection (what I understood as encapsulation) within C#.
To be more specific, everything I have read when I got to properties in C# is that you should try to use them in place of fields when you can because of:
1) they allow you to change the data type when you can't when directly accessing the field directly.
2) they add a level of protection to data access
However, from what I 'thought' I had come to know about the use of field modifiers did #2, it seemed to me that properties just generated additional code unless you had some reason to change the type (#1) - because you are (more or less) creating hidden methods to access fields as opposed to directly.
Then there is the whole modifiers being able to be added to Properties which further complicates my understanding for the need of properties to access data.
I have read a number of chapters from different writers on "properties" and none have really explained a good understanding of properties vs. fields vs. encapsulation (and good programming methods).
Can someone explain:
1) why I would want to use properties instead of fields (especially when it appears I am just adding additional code
2) any tips on recognizing the use of properties and not seeing them as simply methods (with the exception of the get;set being apparent) when tracing other peoples code?
3) Any general rules of thumb when it comes to good programming methods in relation to when to use what?
Thanks and sorry for the long post - I didn't want to just ask a question that has been asked 100x without explaining why I am asking it again.

1) why I would want to use properties
instead of fields (especially when it
appears I am just adding additional
code
You should always use properties where possible. They abstract direct access to the field (which is created for you if you don't create one). Even if the property does nothing other than setting a value, it can protect you later on. Changing a field to a property later is a breaking change, so if you have a public field and want to change it to a public property, you have to recompile all code which originally accessed that field.
2) any tips on recognizing the use of
properties and not seeing them as
simply methods (with the exception of
the get;set being apparent) when
tracing other peoples code?
I'm not totally certain what you are asking, but when tracing over someone else's code, you should always assume that the property is doing something other than just getting and setting a value. Although it's accepted practice to not put large amounts of code in getters and setter, you can't just assume that since it's a property it will behave quickly.
3) Any general rules of thumb when it
comes to good programming methods in
relation to when to use what?
I always use properties to get and set methods where possible. That way I can add code later if I need to check that the value is within certain bounds, not null etc. Without using properties, I have to go back and put those checks in every place I directly accessed the field.

One of the nice things about Properties is that the getter and the setter can have different levels of access. Consider this:
public class MyClass {
public string MyString { get; private set; }
//...other code
}
This property can only be changed from within, say in a constructor. Have a read up on Dependency Injection. Constructor injection and Property injection both deal with setting properties from some form of external configuration. There are many frameworks out there. If you delve into some of these you will get a good feel for properties and their use. Dependency injection will also help you with your 3rd question about good practice.
When looking at other people's code, you can tell whether something is a method or a property because their icons are different. Also, in Intellisence, the first part of a property's summary is the word Property.

You should not worry about the extra code needed for accessing fields via properties, it will be "optimized" away by the JIT compiler (by inlining the code). Except when it is too large to be inlined, but then you needed the extra code anyway.
And the extra code for defining simple properties is also minimal:
public int MyProp { get; set; } // use auto generated field.
When you need to customize you can alway define your own field later.
So you are left with the extra layer of encapsulation / data protection, and that is a good thing.
My rule: expose fields always through properties

While I absolutely dislike directly exposing fields to the public, there's another thing: Fields can't be exposed through Interfaces; Properties can.

There are several reasons why you might want to use Properties over Fields, here are just a couple:
a. By having the following
public string MyProperty { get; private set; }
you are making the property "read only". No one using your code can modify it's value. There are cases where this isn't strictly true (if your property is a list), but these are known and have solutions.
b. If you decide you need to increase the safety of your code use properties:
public string MyProperty
{
get { return _myField; }
set
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
{
_myField = value;
}
}
}
You can tell they're properties because they don't have (). The compiler will tell you if you try to add brackets.
It's considered good practise to always use properties.

There are many scenarios where using a simple field would not cause damage, but
a Property can be changed more easily later, i.e. if you want to add an event whenever the value changes or want to perform some value/range checking.
Also, If you have several projects that depend on each other you have to recompile all that depend on the one where a field was changed to a property.

Using fields is usually practiced in private classes that is not intended to share data with other classes, When we want our data to be accessible by other classes we use properties which has the ability to share data with other classes through get and set which are access methods called Auto Properties that have access to data in private classes, also you can use both with access modifiers Full Property in the same class allowing the class to use data privately as data field and in the same time link the private field to a property that makes the data accessible to other classes as well, see this simple example:
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
_name = value;
}
}
The private string _name is used by the class only, while the Name property is accessible by other classes in the same namespace.

why I would want to use properties instead of fields (especially when it appears I am just adding additional code
You want to use properties over fields becuase, when you use properties you can use events with them, so in a case when you want to do some action when a property changes, you can bind some handlers to PropertyChanging or PropertyChanged events. In case of fields this is not possible. Fields can either be public or private or protected, in case of props you can make them read-only publicly but writable privately.
any tips on recognizing the use of properties and not seeing them as simply methods (with the exception of the get;set being apparent) when tracing other peoples code?
A method should be used when the return value is expected to be dynamic every-time you call, a property should be used when the return value is not that greatly dynamic.
Any general rules of thumb when it comes to good programming methods in relation to when to use what?
Yes, I strongly recommend to read Framework Design guidelines for best practices of good programming.

Properties are the preferred way to cover fields to enforce encapsulation. However, they are functional in that you can expose a property that is of a different type and marshal the casting; you can change access modifiers; they are used in WinForms data binding; they allow you to embed lightweight per-property logic such as change notifications; etc.
When looking at other peoples code, properties have different intellisense icons to methods.
If you think properties are just extra code, I would argue sticking with them anyway but make your life easier by auto-generating the property from the field (right-click -> Refactor -> Encapsulate Field...)

Properties allow you to do things other than set or get a value when you use them. Most notably, they allow you to do validation logic.
A Best Practice is to make anything exposed to the public a Property. That way, if you change the set/get logic at a later time, you only have to recompile your class, not every class linked against it.

One caveat is that things like "Threading.Interlocked.Increment" can work with fields, but cannot work with properties. If two threads simultaneously call Threading.Interlocked.Increment on SomeObject.LongIntegerField, the value will get increased by two even if there is no other locking. By contrast, if two threads simultaneously call Threading.Interlocked.Increment on SomeObject.LongIntegerProperty, the value of that property might get incremented by two, or by one, or by -4,294,967,295, or who knows what other values (the property could be written to use locking prevent values other than one or two in that scenario, but it could not be written to ensure the correct increment by two).

I was going to say Properties (setters) are a great place to raise events like NotifyPropertyChanged, but someone else beat me to it.
Another good reason to consider Properties: let's say you use a factory to construct some object that has a default constructor, and you prepare the object via its Properties.
new foo(){Prop1 = "bar", Prop2 = 33, ...};
But if outside users new up your object, maybe there are some properties that you want them to see as read-only and not be able to set (only the factory should be able to set them)? You can make the setters internal - this only works, of course, if the object's class is in the same assembly as the factory.
There are other ways to achieve this goal but using Properties and varying accessor visibility is a good one to consider if you're doing interface-based development, or if you expose libraries to others, etc.

In migrating from Java to C# what should I know about accessor classes

I am a Java programming now also writing in C#. I have seen Accessor classes generated by the VS test generating software (to give access from Tests to private members or functions). Should I be creating Accessors deliberately and if so why

The generated accessors in MSTest are there to test the private parts of classes. So already there I would ask myself should we explicitly test internals.
I believe unit tests should only exercise the public face of a class, thus the generated accessor stuff becomes obsolete. In my experience that is a good thing, since I find them non-trivial to maintain especially when things change (as they usually do with refactoring going on).

In Roy Osherove's The Art of Unit Testing, he mentions a really important thing about consumers of your classes. Unit tests are consumers and use the API. If you need to change the visibility of you api then to test then you should. Don't use accessors if you can avoid it.
In fact I suggest reading this book :-)

If you use accessors, the underlying implementation can be changed without changing the API.
By exposing a public field you expose the internals of how that data is being stored. Using a public property instead allows you more flexibility to change the way the data is stored internally and not break the public interface.
In C# 3.0 and later, auto-implemented
properties make property-declaration
more concise when no additional logic
is required in the property accessors.
They also enable client code to create
objects When you declare a property as
shown in the following example, the
compiler creates a private, anonymous
backing field can only be accessed
through the property's get and set
accessors.
Auto-Implemented Properties
Eg:
// Auto-Impl Properties for trivial get and set
public string Name { get; set; }
public int CustomerID { get; set; }

C# protected field to private, add property--why?

In Visual Studio 2008 Team System, I just ran Code Analysis (from the Analyze menu) on one of my C# projects. One of the warnings produced was the following:
Microsoft.Design : Because field 'Connection._domain' is visible outside of its declaring type, change its accessibility to private and add a property, with the same accessibility as the field has currently, to provide access to it.
It's referring to the following field:
public abstract class Connection
{
protected string _domain;
}
I don't understand the reasoning behind the suggestion. This is what I think it wants me to do:
public abstract class Connection
{
private string _domain;
protected string Domain { get { return _domain; } set { _domain = value; } }
}
Two questions:
Did I understand correctly what the suggestion wants me to do, code-wise?
Why does it want me to do this?

Yes, I think you understood correctly - although in later versions of C#, there's a more concise way to write it:
public string Domain { get; set; }
Why? It's all about encapsulation. If you do as it suggests, you can later change the definition of the Domain property without affecting any calling code that uses that property. Since your class is public, and might conceivably be called by code that you didn't write, that's potentially quite important.

This is because if you ever wanted to change the field to a property in the future you would break any other assemblies that depend on it.
It is good practice to keep all fields private and wrap them in properties so that you have the option of adding validation or other logic in the future without recompiling all consumers (or in this case inheritors) of your class.

Yep. That's the suggestion. You shouldn't have any accessibility higher than private exposed as direct instance fields.
It's one of the main principles of OOD - encapsulation also referred to as 'data-hiding'.

Yes, you did correct the problem code wise.
It is about encapsulation. _domain is data about your object. Rather then exposing it directly so that any client has unfiltered access, you should provide an interface for them to access it. Practically this might be adding validation to the setter so that it can't be set to any value. It might seem silly if you are the only one writing code because you know how your API works. But try to think about things on a large enterprise level, it is better to have an API so that your object can be seen as a box that accomiplishes a task. You might say you will never have the need to add something like validation to that object, but things are done that way to hold for the possibility of it, and also to be consistent.

Your translation is correct. The same argument for can be made for using 'protected' properties as can be made for using 'public' properties instead of exposing member variables directly.
If this just leads to a proliferation of simple getters and setters then I think the damage to code readablity outweighs the benefit of being able to change the code in the future. With the development of compiler-generated properties in C# this isn't quite so bad, just use:
protected string Domain { get; set; }

In answer to your question... yes.
However, I would just use the auto-property syntax:
public abstract class Connection
{
protected string Domain { get; set; }
}

Basically, properties provide more than returning or setting a member. They allow you to add logic that could verify a proper input format, range validation, etc.
The selected answer from the link puts it best, "Properties provide encapsulation. You can encapulate any needed validation/formating/conversion in the code for the property. This would be difficult to do for fields."
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-IE/netfxbcl/thread/985f4887-92ae-4ec2-b7ae-ec8cc6eb3a42

In addition to the other answers mentioned here, public/protected members that begin with an underscore are not CLS-compliant, in that there is no requirement for .NET languages to support members with leading underscores, so someone inheriting from your class in a different .NET language may not be able to access that particular protected member.
I know, it probably doesn't apply to you, but it might be part of the reason for the code analysis warning.