Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7172311
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 28, 20262026-05-28T15:35:25+00:00 2026-05-28T15:35:25+00:00

I have an application that I’m writing that uses solely @properties. I have not

  • 0

I have an application that I’m writing that uses solely @properties. I have not one ivar declared at all in any of my class files. As I understand it ivars are no longer needed with the introduction of @property. Am I coding according to best practice? Will this end up biting me in the proverbial butt in the long term? I have been reading mixed reviews on what is “right” and “wrong”…

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-28T15:35:27+00:00Added an answer on May 28, 2026 at 3:35 pm

    I generally don’t declare ivars, either. I will often use @synthesize foo = foo_; though to prevent direct access when I meant through-method or vice-versa. And I always let the compiler automatically synthesize the ivar with the _ prefix (which prevents accidental direct access, as per the struck phrase).

    And, as Caleb said, there are still ivars floating about, you just don’t explicitly declare ’em unless you really want to (which, really, you don’t as exposed ivars in the headers are not useful to clients of the class, if your API is designed appropriately).

    I also find that the hype over “only use direct access in init/dealloc, use setter/getter everywhere else” to be largely overblown and, thus, just use the setter/getter everywhere. The reality is that if you have observers during initialization/deallocation, you are already hosed; the state of the object is, by definition, undefined during construction/destruction and, thus, an observer can’t possibly reason correctly about the state.


    As Caleb points out, another reason to use direct ivar access in init/dealloc is to avoid subclasses that implement custom setter/getter logic that may barf due to the undefined state of the object during init/dealloc.

    While this may be true, I consider it a nasty architectural flaw to implement setters/getters with custom behavior. Doing so is fragile and makes it significantly more difficult to refactor the code over time. As well, such custom behavior will often have dependency on other state within the object and that dependency then leads to order dependencies on state changes that are not at all reflected by the seeming simple @property declaration.

    I.e. if your setters and getters are written such that foo.bar = bad; cannot be executed at any time on foo, then your code is busted.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have application that uses IPv4 addresses (it stores them as long), so it
I have an application that uses Salesforce services using a Remote Access Application. This
I have an application that uses Swing. The display I am working on, uses
I have an application that uses a mobile ad provider; the way ad provider
I have an application that works without any problem in a spanish server. When
I have an application that reads emails from ONE email account (gmail application account)
I have an application that uses WebServices to send database records (as an array)
I have application that uses direct data access to it's Database. I have nothing
I have an application that uses an aps:GridView. The GridView is populated using a
I have a Mono application that should not show on the dock, but will

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.