I have seen member variables given a private modifier and then using getter/setter methods just to set and get the values of the variable (in the name of standardization).
Why not then make the variable public itself (Other than cases like spring framework which depends on getter/setters for IOC etc). It serves the purpose.
In C# I have seen getter/setter with Capitalization of the member variable. Why not make the variable public itself?
Some Java frameworks require them (JavaBeans I think).
-- Edit
Some posters are trying to say this is about encapsulation. It isn't.
Encapsulation is about hiding the implementation details of your object, and exposing only relevant functions.
Providing a get/set that does nothing but set a value does not accomplish this at all, and the only reason for them is:
You also mentioned C# properties. These are really just getters/setters under the hood, but with a more concise syntax.
You'd need encapsulate those attributes if there are constraints for example or to make general validity checks or post events on changes or whatever. The basic use is hiding the attribute from the "outer world".
This is done so you can change the getter or setter implementation in your public API after you release it. Using public fields, you wouldn't be able to check values for validity.
In order to get a stable API from the first shot. The Java gurus thought that if later on, you might want to have some extra logic when setting/getting an instance member, you don't want to break existing API by replacing public fields with public methods. This is the main reason in Java.
In the case of C#, public properties are used instead of public fields because of binary interface compatibility. Someone asked a similar question right here, on SO.
So, it's all about encapsulating some logic while still preserving interface for... future proofing.
It's part of encapsulation: abstracting a class's interface (the "getters" and "setters") from its implementation (using an instance variable). While you might decide to implement the behaviour through direct access to an instance variable today, you might want to do it differently tomorrow. Say you need to retrieve the value over the network instead of storing it locally—if you have encapsulated the behaviour, that's a trivial change. If other objects are relying on direct access to an instance variable, though, you're stuck.
There are several reasons:
further code support: if sometime in future you`ll need to perform some actions before each access/mutation (get/set) of the variable, you will have less problems with it. In C# constructions like
public int Age { get { return (int)(today() - m_BirthDate); } }
are are just syntactic sugar.
The most and foremost use for getters and setters in Java is to annoy the developers. The second most important use is to clutter the code with useless noise. Additionally, it forces you to use a different name for the same thing, depending on where you are (inside or outside the class). Not to forget the added ambiguity (do you call the getter inside the class or do you use the field directly?) Next, they are used to allow access to private data but that's just a minor side effect ;)
In other programming languages, the compiler will generate them for you (unless, of course, you provide your own implementations). In Delphi, for example, you have read and write modifiers for fields (just like private, static or final in Java). The define if you'll have a getter or setter generated for you.
Unlike the Delphi guys, the Java guys wanted everything to be explicit. "If it's not in the source, it's not there". So the only solution was to force people to write all the getters and setters manually. Even worse, people have to use a different name for the same thing.
Getters and setters may very well be the greatest lie ever told. They are considered a sign of good design, while the opposite is true. New programmers should be taught proper encapsulation, not to write dumb data carrier classes that contain nothing but getters and setters.
(The idea that you need getters and setters to future-proof your code if you want to change the implementation later on is an obvious case of YAGNI. But that is really beside the point.)
The most common reason is a poor understanding of encapsulation. When the developer believes that encapsulating stuff really just means getters & setters rather than encapsulating behavour.
The valid reasons for having getters/setters are:
1) You are making a generic¹ object such as JComponent. By using a getter/setter rather than direct access to the variable means that you can do some pre-processing on said variable first (such as validate it is with a set range) or change the underlying implementation (switching from an int to a BigInteger without changing the public API).
2) Your DI framework does not support ctor injection. By having just a setter you can ensure that the variable is only set once.
3) (Ties in with #1) To allow tools to interact with your object. By using such a simple convention then GUI tools can easily get all the settings for a given component. An example of this would be the UI builder in NetBeans.
¹ Of the not-Generic type. Bad word to use I know, please suggest an alternative.
Because interfaces only allow for specifying methods, not variables. Interfaces are the building stones of API's.
Hence, to access a field through an interface, you need to have the getter and setter.
Having a setter allows you
In the case in question there is no need for getter and setter if the value is simply read or written.