In terms of the setters and getters they are however directly equivalent. And regardless as to whether people are forced to write getters/setters. Sun pretty much dictated this decision with the release of the JavaBean spec donkies years ago.

In Java also, noone is forcing anyone to write getters/settters. You can forget about them if you like And believe me, except the genre? the code will look exactly the same

public class Song {
public String name
public String genre
public String artist

public String getGenre() {
if(genre != null) { return gerne; }

return “”; // something …
}

My previous comment suggested that you dont have strict OO concept in those languages (talking mostly from my python experience though).

It’s fast and beautiful, i agree. But it has its limitations :). Serves its puprose though.

I dont think that are really comparable though

For example, the private modifier in “genre” prohibits a developer that just uses the class to accidentally reference the content without using the getGenre … right?

In the groovy counterpart i could just say Song().genre … right? (i’m not a groovy expert though).

In addition, i think the example is not very indicative … since it is easy to ommit and simplify things things in a getter/setter class.

My experience with dynamic languages (especially python and Perl) is that they have earned their place, but they cannot be used efficiently in large applications.

I did the same with Groovy, until now. This was great summary. It reminds me of how everyone jumped on C++ at first because it was backwards compatible with C.