No.
C# and Objective-C (And I assume similar languages too) can have public accessors which are not used like function. No need to add ()'s everywhere.
C# and Objective-C (And I assume similar languages too) can have public accessors which are not used like function. No need to add ()'s everywhere.
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.
*Honest question - I first learned programming with C#, and so those conventions seem 'correct' to me.
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.