2003.09.30 01:39 AM

Speaking of VB.NET Properties

While I respect the VB.NET team's desire for cleanliness and consistency (as explained here by Paul Vick), as a programmer I feel stupid having to add a ReadOnly property specifier to a property having only a Get.

When did a couple of explicit, sensical, and consistent extra lines in an interface definition become "a lot of wasted screen real estate"? If it was at least optional, I could use it in my interface definitions (thus avoiding all that "wasted space"), but not use it in my concrete classes where I will actually add all the Gets and Sets that I need.

For what it's worth, Mr. Vick was responding to Frans Bouma's post regarding useless programming language constructs, where you'll find the following quote:

"Isn't it obvious that when there is just a Get and no Set, the property is ReadOnly? Why a statement to explicitly define it ReadOnly, as if there is another way to define it."

Agreed.


Comments



Post a Comment

 
  (optional)
  (no html)
 
   


TrackBack

TrackBack URL:  http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c7bd453ef00d83537b93469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Speaking of VB.NET Properties: