We Keep Coding

Is there any reason to use field over automatic property? [duplicate]

I just realized that the C# property construct can also be used with a private access modifier:
private string Password { get; set; }
Although this is technically interesting, I can't imagine when I would use it since a private field involves even less ceremony:
private string _password;
and I can't imagine when I would ever need to be able to internally get but not set or set but not get a private field:
private string Password { get; }
or
private string Password { set; }
but perhaps there is a use case with nested / inherited classes or perhaps where a get/set might contain logic instead of just giving back the value of the property, although I would tend to keep properties strictly simple and let explicit methods do any logic, e.g. GetEncodedPassword().
Does anyone use private properties in C# for any reason or is it just one of those technically-possible-yet-rarely-used-in-actual-code constructs?
Addendum
Nice answers, reading through them I culled these uses for private properties:
when private fields need to be lazily loaded
when private fields need extra logic or are calculated values
since private fields can be difficult to debug
in order to "present a contract to yourself"
to internally convert/simplify an exposed property as part of serialization
wrapping global variables to be used inside your class

I use them if I need to cache a value and want to lazy load it.
private string _password;
private string Password
{
get
{
if (_password == null)
{
_password = CallExpensiveOperation();
}
return _password;
}
}

The primary usage of this in my code is lazy initialization, as others have mentioned.
Another reason for private properties over fields is that private properties are much, much easier to debug than private fields. I frequently want to know things like "this field is getting set unexpectedly; who is the first caller that sets this field?" and it is way easier if you can just put a breakpoint on the setter and hit go. You can put logging in there. You can put performance metrics in there. You can put in consistency checks that run in the debug build.
Basically, it comes down to : code is far more powerful than data. Any technique that lets me write the code I need is a good one. Fields don't let you write code in them, properties do.

perhaps there is a use case with nested / inherited classes or perhaps where a get/set might contain logic instead of just giving back the value of the property
I personally use this even when I don't need logic on the getter or setter of a property. Using a property, even a private one, does help future-proof your code so that you can add the logic to a getter later, if required.
If I feel that a property may eventually require extra logic, I will sometimes wrap it into a private property instead of using a field, just so I don't have to change my code later.
In a semi-related case (though different than your question), I very frequently use the private setters on public properties:
public string Password
{
get;
private set;
}
This gives you a public getter, but keeps the setter private.

One good usage for private get only properties are calculated values. Several times I've had properties which are private readonly and just do a calculation over other fields in my type. It's not worthy of a method and not interesting to other classes so private property it is.

Lazy initialization is one place where they can be neat, e.g.
private Lazy<MyType> mytype = new Lazy<MyType>(/* expensive factory function */);
private MyType MyType { get { return this.mytype.Value; } }
// In C#6, you replace the last line with: private MyType MyType => myType.Value;
Then you can write: this.MyType everywhere rather than this.mytype.Value and encapsulate the fact that it is lazily instantiated in a single place.
One thing that's a shame is that C# doesn't support scoping the backing field to the property (i.e. declaring it inside the property definition) to hide it completely and ensure that it can only ever be accessed via the property.

The only one usage that I can think of
private bool IsPasswordSet
{
get
{
return !String.IsNullOrEmpty(_password);
}
}

Properties and fields are not one to one. A property is about the interface of a class (whether talking about its public or internal interface), while a field is about the class's implementation. Properties should not be seen as a way to just expose fields, they should be seen as a way to expose the intent and purpose of the class.
Just like you use properties to present a contract to your consumers on what constitutes your class, you can also present a contract to yourself for very similar reasons. So yes, I do use private properties when it makes sense. Sometimes a private property can hide away implementation details like lazy loading, the fact that a property is really a conglomeration of several fields and aspects, or that a property needs to be virtually instantiated with each call (think DateTime.Now). There are definitely times when it makes sense to enforce this even on yourself in the backend of the class.

I use them in serialization, with things like DataContractSerializer or protobuf-net which support this usage (XmlSerializer doesn't). It is useful if you need to simplify an object as part of serialization:
public SomeComplexType SomeProp { get;set;}
[DataMember(Order=1)]
private int SomePropProxy {
get { return SomeProp.ToInt32(); }
set { SomeProp = SomeComplexType.FromInt32(value); }
}

I use private properties to reduce code for accessing sub properties which often to use.
private double MonitorResolution
{
get { return this.Computer.Accesories.Monitor.Settings.Resolution; }
}
It is useful if there are many sub properties.

One thing I do all the time is store "global" variables/cache into HttpContext.Current
private static string SomeValue{
get{
if(HttpContext.Current.Items["MyClass:SomeValue"]==null){
HttpContext.Current.Items["MyClass:SomeValue"]="";
}
return HttpContext.Current.Items["MyClass:SomeValue"];
}
set{
HttpContext.Current.Items["MyClass:SomeValue"]=value;
}
}

I use them every now and then. They can make it easier to debug things when you can easily put in a breakpoint in the property or you can add a logging statement etc.
Can be also be useful if you later need to change the type of your data in some way or if you need to use reflection.

I know this question is very old but the information below was not in any of the current answers.
I can't imagine when I would ever need to be able to internally get but not set
If you are injecting your dependencies you may well want to have a Getter on a Property and not a setter as this would denote a readonly Property. In other words the Property can only be set in the constructor and cannot be changed by any other code within the class.
Also Visual Studio Professional will give information about a Property and not a field making it easier to see what your field is being used.

It is a common practice to only modify members with get/set methods, even private ones. Now, the logic behind this is so you know your get/set always behave in a particular way (for instance, firing off events) which doesn't seem to make sense since those won't be included in the property scheme... but old habits die hard.

It makes perfect sense when there is logic associated with the property set or get (think lazy initialization) and the property is used in a few places in the class.
If it's just a straight backing field? Nothing comes to mind as a good reason.

Well, as no one mentioned you can use it to validate data or to lock variables.
Validation
string _password;
string Password
{
get { return _password; }
set
{
// Validation logic.
if (value.Length < 8)
{
throw new Exception("Password too short!");
}
_password = value;
}
}
Locking
object _lock = new object();
object _lockedReference;
object LockedReference
{
get
{
lock (_lock)
{
return _lockedReference;
}
}
set
{
lock (_lock)
{
_lockedReference = value;
}
}
}
Note: When locking a reference you do not lock access to members of the referenced object.
Lazy reference: When lazy loading you may end up needing to do it async for which nowadays there is AsyncLazy. If you are on older versions than of the Visual Studio SDK 2015 or not using it you can also use AsyncEx's AsyncLazy.

One more usage would be to do some extra operations when setting value.
It happens in WPF in my case, when I display some info based on private object (which doesn't implement INotifyPropertyChanged):
private MyAggregateClass _mac;
private MyAggregateClass Mac
{
get => _mac;
set
{
if(value == _mac) return;
_mac = value;
PropertyChanged?.Invoke(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(nameof(DisplayInfo)));
}
}
public string DisplayInfo => _mac.SomeStringInformationToDisplayOnUI;
One could also have some private method, such as
private void SetMac(MyAggregateClass newValue)
to do that.

Some more exotic uses of explicit fields include:
you need to use ref or out with the value - perhaps because it is an Interlocked counter
it is intended to represent fundamental layout for example on a struct with explicit layout (perhaps to map to a C++ dump, or unsafe code)
historically the type has been used with BinaryFormatter with automatic field handling (changing to auto-props changes the names and thus breaks the serializer)

Various answers have mentioned using properties to implement a lazy member. And this answer discussed using properties to make live aliases. I just wanted to point out that those two concepts sometimes go together.
When using a property to make an alias of another object's public property, the laziness of that property is preserved:
[DebuggerBrowsable(DebuggerBrowsableState.Never)]
private IDbConnection Conn => foo.bar.LazyDbConnection;
On the other hand, retrieving that property in the constructor would negate the lazy aspect:
Conn = foo.bar.LazyDbConnection;

Looking into the guideline (Properties (C# Programming Guide)) it seems no one expects to use properties as private members.
Properties enable a class to expose a public way of getting and setting values, while hiding implementation or verification code.
In any case it can be interchanged by one or two methods and vice versa.
So the reason can be to spare parentheses on getting and get field syntax on setting.

c# using field with get and set methods vs using property

What is the difference in functionality between using a field with get and set methods versus using a property to attribute a value to an object through a class? For example, when setting up a value val in a class, are there any reasons to choose one of the two classes below over the other (other than length of code written and interface compatibility):
class FieldTest
{
public FieldTest()
{
}
private string val;
public void SetVal(string temp)
{
val = temp;
}
public string GetVal()
{
return val;
}
}
Versus
class PropertyTest
{
public PropertyTest()
{
}
public string val { get; set; }
}
Tested Usage in Visual Studio 2010:
class TestFunctions
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
FieldTest Test_Fields = new FieldTest();
Test_Fields.SetVal("Test");
string temp_str = Test_Fields.GetVal();
PropertyTest Test_Property = new PropertyTest();
Test_Property.val = "test";
string temp_str_prop = Test_Property.val;
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Field: " + temp_str + "\n\nProperty: " + temp_str_prop);
}
}
I know only a field can use ref and out keywords, but the other advantages usually attributed to a property--encapsulation, versioning, etc-- seem to be the same with these two setups.
I've checked articles such as Difference between Property and Field in C# 3.0+ and What is the difference between a Field and a Property in C#?. Though they give good descriptions of the ideas behind properties and fields, I have not been able to find a specific answer to my question.
Thanks in advance for clarification.
EDIT 2015-07-29:
I believe this to be a separate question from other StackOverflow answers, such as those found here, as these answers did not seem to specifically address using fields with their own get and set methods as a replacement for a property.
My statement above, "I know only a field can use ref and out keywords..." comes from answers similar to the following (found here):
      "Fields may be used for out / ref parameters, properties may not. Properties support additional
       logic – this could be used to implement lazy loading among other things."

The functionality is almost identical. For "normal" code use-cases, these snippets will act exactly the same, as a property is in effect just a hidden field with two hidden methods (get and set).
However, there is a difference when it comes to reflection. Properties show up as PropertyInfo, and methods MethodInfo. You also can only bind to properties (in WPF/WinRT). Serialization also only works against properties. Both of these (and doubtlessly others) fail because they use reflection to find the members to act against.
So depending on your use case, they are the same. Generally speaking, I would stick with properties.

In the .NET world properties are how you attribute data to objects. Methods are typically actions associated with the objects. Fields usually store internal (private) object instance state.
Under the hood, read/write property accessors get compiled to get and set methods.
Additionally, many technologies do not work with methods. Data Annotations, Entity Framework, and serialization are a few that pop instantly to mind.

I would always vote for properties rather than getter and setter.
First of all - using Property is neat and clean. The code is more clear, less junky and easy to understand.
If you use Automatic Property you just need one line of code for one Property where you need at least 6 for a getter and setter approach. So if your class has 20 attributes then total 120 lines of codes? Oh Man!!!
but the other advantages usually attributed to a property--encapsulation, versioning, etc-- seem to be the same with these two setups. => I disagree, consider a scenario where you want to force all implementation of an interface with an attribute to be readonly. That is easily doable with a readonly property in the interface. Now try that with getter and setter. Frankly you can't.
Then there comes Serialization. You cannot serialize a computed value unless that is a property. Methods are never serialized.

Let's take a look at your second code:
class PropertyTest
{
public PropertyTest()
{
}
public string val { get; set; }
}
As said in the Auto-Implemented Properties page on MSDN, when you declare an auto-implemented property like in your example, the compiler creates a private, anonymous backing field that can only be accessed through the property's get and set accessors.
In other words, it would be like writing this code:
public class PropertyTest
{
public PropertyTest()
{
}
private string _val;
public string val
{
get { return _val; }
set { val = value; }
}
}
So, properties are a way to encapsulate fields. As you can see on MSDN, too:
A property is a member that provides a flexible mechanism to read,
write, or compute the value of a private field. Properties can be used
as if they are public data members, but they are actually special
methods called accessors. This enables data to be accessed easily and
still helps promote the safety and flexibility of methods.
In my opinion, you should always prefer to use the property implementation than the getter/setter methods. Not because it seems cleaner and flexible to make things like compute values, but it is actually easier to implement (you write less code on auto-implemented properties).
We could say that there are almost no difference from the properties than the getter/setter methods too, if we look at the part where MSDN says "but they are actually special methods called accessors". But again, we have the example of brainless coder above, we have Framework behaviours that encourages us to use properties: methods can not be serialized, while properties can.

If we inherit a class do the private variables also get inherited?

If we inherit a class do the private variables also get inherited?
I know that "Yes, the variables are inherited but cannot be accessed directly by the class interface."
What I want to know is how can we access the private variables/methods from the child class
What I am trying to say is that private members are also inherited.But how to access the same without making them protected.

I know that "Yes, the variables are inherited but cannot be accessed directly by the class interface."
So you know the answer then.
What I want to know is how can we access the private variables/methods from the child class
You can’t, that’s why they are private (rather than, say, protected). The whole intention of making them private is so that you cannot access them from anywhere, notably including child classes.
Explicitly breaking this encapsulation is almost always a sign of a broken design and shouldn’t ever be part of a normal code flow. However, there are situations in which you want to reason about some code, and in these situations it may be necessary to examine even private values. Reflection libraries allow this. Here’s a simple example using the System.Reflection capabilities:
class Widget {
private readonly string identifier;
public Widget(string identifier) {
this.identifier = identifier;
}
}
class MainClass {
public static void Main(string[] args) {
var widget = new Widget("my_test_widget");
var type = widget.GetType();
var field = type.GetField("identifier",
System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Instance |
System.Reflection.BindingFlags.NonPublic);
Console.WriteLine($"{field} = {field.GetValue(widget)}");
}
}

Make them protected. For variables, make a protected property that the child classes then use.

You can only access private variables/methods from a derived class using reflection. You cannot access them in a "natural" way, since the whole point of making them private is to hide them from other classes (including derived classes).

Make it protected property instead of private member.

What I want to know is how can we access the private variables/methods from the child class
.........
But how to access the same without making them protected.
You might want to try using reflection:
Here is a similar question / answer that explains how this can be done.

Can you modify a private field of a super class?

I'm working with a closed-source base class. Can I somehow change a private field in the base class from my inheriting class?
Assuming the following class structure:
public class Parent
{
private bool age;
}
public class Baby : Parent
{
public bool newAge{
get {
return age;
}
}
}
This currently gives you a compile-time error:
'Parent.age' is inaccessible due to its protection level.
How do you access the field "age" from the Baby class? Can you use reflection or something similar?

You could, using reflection. It looks like this:
public class Baby : Parent
{
private readonly FieldInfo _ageField = typeof(Parent).GetField("age", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
public int newAge
{
get
{
return (int)_ageField.GetValue(this);
}
set
{
_ageField.SetValue(this, value);
}
}
}
If it's provided by a 3rd party, there is nothing stopping them from changing it, renaming it, it removing it all together. That's one of the points of private. Keep in mind that it might be private for a reason. Tinkering where you aren't suppose to can lead to unexpected results.

You can try to use reflection to get access to private fields and modify them. Like:
typeof(Parent)
.GetField("age", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic)
.SetValue(parent, 14);
where parent is an instance of Parent.

You can modify those values via reflection. That being said, you probably shouldn't.
Private fields, properties, and methods are all things that are not explicitly guaranteed by the contract of the class. If this 3rd-party API is reliable the public contracts they provide will not change (but they can easily grow).
The private and internal parts are not guaranteed to be the same from release to release. By coupling your code to those parts of the code, you've introduced a lot of risk to your future releases. If you're ok with that risk (and it's well-documented as to why you're doing it), the by all means, reflect away.
If you do go that route, I would recommend an Adapter class that all your consuming code uses instead of this 3rd-party API. With the Adapter pattern, only the one class will need to change in response to the 3rd-part API changes.

Well, since you cannot change the source code of the parent class, there's possibly 2 choices:
If the parent class is a partial class, you can define your own contribution (another Parent class) defining a public Property (it can access private fields).
You can indeed use reflection.

No you cannot do it. Unless you use reflection for example:
Reflection.FieldInfo fields[] =
myType.GetFields(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);

how to get private field value by string inside an object without using switch?

say, classA has private field A,B,C,D,E.. I wanna build a private (i belive i cannot do public?) method StringToProperty inside the classA so that StringToProperty("A") returns A.

First, sure it can be a public method. If you expect that the method can't be public because it's calling stuff that is private, that is not accurate. Think of public methods/properties as controlled windows into the underlying private members.
So to retrieve the property, can use use reflection.
public string StringToProperty(string fieldName)
{
Type myType = this.GetType();
FieldInfo field = myType.GetField(fieldName, BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
return Convert.ToString(field.GetValue(this));
}
Look here for more info: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.reflection.fieldinfo.getvalue.aspx
That should do it, but I warn you that reflection may introduce a performance penalty, depending on what you are loading and how often. Please ensure that it is performing sufficient for your needs, because you may need to do some sort of caching of the FieldInfo data.