Then you aren't understanding how OO is supposed to work. The correct encapsulation would be by having behavior based method:
bankAcct.accrueInterest()
Getters and Setters don't come from OO they come from "construction by parts" a style of programming made for automated UIs like in VB. It has its place, its related to OO, but it isn't encapsulation. It's the opposite. Its exposing your attributes to the outside world.
And plenty of OO was written by great programmers like Kent Beck and others that later helped influence how we did it in other languages. But the popularization of many techniques has little to do with good OO, and simply popularization of stuff that certain developers promoted.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
No. Its a misunderstanding about what encapsulation is.
If you have a computation like:
bankAcct.setBalance(bankAcct.getBalance() * bankAcct.getInterestRate())
Then you aren't understanding how OO is supposed to work. The correct encapsulation would be by having behavior based method:
bankAcct.accrueInterest()
Getters and Setters don't come from OO they come from "construction by parts" a style of programming made for automated UIs like in VB. It has its place, its related to OO, but it isn't encapsulation. It's the opposite. Its exposing your attributes to the outside world.
And plenty of OO was written by great programmers like Kent Beck and others that later helped influence how we did it in other languages. But the popularization of many techniques has little to do with good OO, and simply popularization of stuff that certain developers promoted.