Members - Reputation: 141
Posted 20 January 2012 - 04:21 PM
Crossbones+ - Reputation: 3754
Posted 20 January 2012 - 04:26 PM
Members - Reputation: 887
Posted 20 January 2012 - 04:48 PM
Edit: got ninjad on that one. To at least add to the topic. One of the big reasons you hide stuff behind getters/setters is also that you can change the internal structure without affecting the interface. Maybe at a later point your int data member gets moved down to a internal substructure or is packed into something else or changes it's type.
Members - Reputation: 462
Posted 20 January 2012 - 09:49 PM
Using pointers or getter functions are not related to each other or exclusive. Needing more code is incorrect. Extra function call is 99% incorrect. Needing more memory is incorrect. The reason people use getter functions is becouse they want the class to be a stuct.
I'm wondering why people don't use pointers instead of getter functions. It's needs much less code, less memory and doesn't require a function call. The reason people use getter functions(at least from my knowledge) is because they want to create variables that can be used in the rest of their code without letting it be written to. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing here?
Don't use pointers if you don't want to think about memory management. References are better, lays out clear ownership structure. If you need getters for all data members, then it should be a struct or the design is flawed.