Is defining get/set methods for every field overkill?

[thebluepandabear]

On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 00:25:57 UTC, Gavin Ray wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 November 2022 at 09:52:11 UTC, Dukc wrote:
>
>> D has far less need for getters/setters than Java or C++. The 
>> reason is [Uniform Function Call 
>> Syntax](https://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ufcs.html). This means 
>> that a member of a `struct` or `class` can start out as a 
>> normal field and be later converted to getter/setter if 
>> needed, without breaking calling code.
>
> This is a great point that I actually had never considered. If 
> you need to swap out the implementation details later, you 
> haven't actually locked yourself in to exposing the raw member 
> because you swap it with a getter function/property of the same 
> name. Huh. I love D.

Interesting point. If that's the case, I'd say getters/setters 
are mostly just code bloat.