The way current C# does accessors / properties is just about perfect, I wish more languages would adopt it.

> The way current C# does accessors / properties is just about perfect

As far as I'm concerned it's quite far from it, because C# still allows public fields, properties and fields are incompatible, properties and methods are separate and Microsoft specifies different naming conventions for fields on one hand and properties & methods on the other.

Perfection is Smalltalk's way of doing it.

And in a syntactic line closer to ALGOL, Ruby is about as good as it gets: no public fields, "properties" are normal methods (setters have a little bit of syntactic sugar, but not much) and auto-generating a bunch of getters, setters or both is a class-level method call.

What is wrong with different naming conventions for fields vs. properties, and methods? It makes it immediately obvious what is what at a glance.

*Honest question - I first learned programming with C#, and so those conventions seem 'correct' to me.

> What is wrong with different naming conventions for fields vs. properties, and methods? It makes it immediately obvious what is what at a glance.

Which is precisely one of the problems of properties in C#, it makes fields and properties look and feel extremely different from the outside which violates the uniform access principle.

As I noted, ideally C# should not have public fields in the first place.

I should have been more clear--I was referring to Java, which seems to be what the OP was talking about.

You say "No." so defiantly, but the reality for Java - which is what everybody else was talking about in this thread and the article - the answer is quite often "Yes."