IMO Dart has the best implementation of properties, which you can start out as normal fields, e.g:

    class Rectangle {
      num left, top, width, height, right bottom;
    }

and can access like normal:

    var height = rect.bottom - rect.top;

But can later be changed into a computed property without affecting the above callsites, e.g:

    class Rectangle {
      num left, top, width, height;

      num get right             => left + width;
          set right(num value)  => left = value - width;
      num get bottom            => top + height;
          set bottom(num value) => top = value - height;
    }

C# is a close 2nd, but it's not binary (or reflection) compatible to change from a field to a property for call-sites (i.e. it's only source-compatible).

The purpose of a getter or setter is to abstract the implementation out from the usage. Computed properties (e.g. C#'s ability to replace a concrete property with a virtual property without breaking any code) do this without requiring mindless implementation (boilerplate code) for the common case (a property that is exactly what it seems to be).

As an added bonus, you don't need to write foo.getBar(), you can just write foo.bar and it Just Works, whether foo.bar is a concrete implementation or a computed property.

Look at this blog post for example:

http://java.dzone.com/articles/java-properties-without

The sad thing is the request here is for something more ugly than what is really wanted (this is just automatic getter/setter implementation -- computed properties are better both for developers and consumers of their output.

In python the default is that things that look like attributes/properties REALLY are direct access. If you later need to shim them out into a function you use the @property decorator (and foo.setter if you need read/write)

    class Blah(object):
      foo = 2 # A normal property. Direct access

      @property
      def bar(self):
        return self.some_lookup_method()
    
      @bar.setter
      def bar(self, value):
        self.set_the_bar(value)

The problem with getters and setters is that the code for them is nearly identical, yet they have to be written in nearly every single class:

  // Sorry if there are any mistakes, I have not
  // written any Java code for quite some time.
  public class Point
  {
    private int x;
    private int y;
    .
    .
    public int getX()
    {
      return x;
    }

    public int getY()
    {
      return y;
    }

    public void setX(int newX)
    {
      x = newX;
    }

    public void setY(int newY)
    {
      y = newY;
    }
  }

Look at how long the class definition is for something so basic!

In Common Lisp there are two ways to define classes/structures, defstruct and defclass. Defstruct[0] automatically automatically defines everything for you:

  (defstruct point  x y)

will define the procedures make-point, point-x, point-y, (setf point-x), and (setf point-y). The cool thing is that they are all procedures. It easily change the class definition without changing the code that uses it. There are also some additional options for defstruct to specify default values, how to print the structure, as well as what prefix to use (the default is the name of the structure, 'point' in this case).

Defclass[1], while much more verbose than defstruct, is much more powerful:

  (defclass point ()
    (x :writer set-x :initarg :x)
    (y :reader get-y :initarg :y)
    (z :accessor z))

will define procedures, set-x, get-y, z, and (setf z). Set-x and (setf z) are the setters, while get-x and z are the getters. To construct a point that is defined this way, one has to use the procedure make-instance which will take keyword parameters[2] :x and :y, for x and y respectively.

  [0] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw445/CLHS/Body/m_defstr.htm
  [1] http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/m_defcla.htm
  [2] http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/functions.html

What's wrong with getters and setters?

It's just redundant code. Most of the time developers don't actually need to override the basic get/set operation on a variable. Yet you have to write the get/set methods over and over.

How do other languages address this issue?

Scala does a good job. You don't need to actually write a get/set method. But if you wanted to modify getFoo() you would simply implement the method with your custom getter

For c# just:

public int Age{get;set;}

no need to declare private variable, get or set methods.

C# introduces the concepts of fields and properties. I dont remember which is which but I think properties are in fact getters and setters,without the verbose "object.getProperty()" syntax , you just write "object.property" and it's call a getter function or a setter function.

Basically you keep states encapsulated without have to manually write methods,you just write methods when you need then.

Java verbosity on that matter is totally unecessary.

Granted when one use an IDE refactoring features can help,but still... A great strenght of the Java language is its stability.But stability doesnt mean a language needs to be that verbose.

To add another example to the list, Ruby lets you list which attributes can be read/written and which ones can only be read on top. Something like.

  class Car
      attr_reader :model, :company # only read
      attr_accessor :color # read and write
  end