What is the difference between a field and an auto property?

Question

I cannot see what the differences between these two classes are:

class Class1
{
    public int a;
}

class Class2
{
    public int a { get; set; }
}

Why is the latter used when one can use the former?

Another similar question: [Public Fields versus Automatic Properties](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1180860/public-fields-versus-automatic-properties) — Sam, May 13 '13 at 21:59

score 4 · Accepted Answer · answered May 13 '13 at 21:58

4

With a property, you can turn your "variable" into a getter/setter paradigm after the fact, and you'll break less code

properties also tend to play better with frameworks that make use of reflection

answered May 13 '13 at 21:58

Although I agree with you and this is generally considered the real reason, IMO the first argument doesn't really makes sense. You could just as easily convert a field into a property. – Kenneth May 13 '13 at 22:02
@Kenneth if you do that, than [programs that use your library will have to re-compile](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/737290/why-prefer-properties-to-public-variables%5C) – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica May 13 '13 at 22:04
1

Also, a property can be declared in an interface, but a field can't. – Branko Dimitrijevic May 13 '13 at 22:08
You are right about that, I forgot about that one. However, in most situations, you either have control over the other apps (most I say) and even if you don't, if you make this change, you'll probably change other things as well, so a recompile will be necessary anyway. Anyway, I think we agree on the whole point. – Kenneth May 13 '13 at 22:08

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered May 13 '13 at 21:59

0

public int a { get; set; }

Getters and Setters are implicits

answered May 13 '13 at 21:59

flow

2 Answers2