My use case is a TUI framework (https://www.incredible.rs/). The setters configure elements in a chain-able manner. I grappled with the rust convention and decided to go the other way. Rational as mentioned.

But this made me think...

> "The getter ought to have a shorter name since it is probably called more frequently"

So i checked. Rough agent driven counts:

https://github.com/ronilan/incredible-flappy 407 setters and 183 getters.

https://github.com/ronilan/rusticon 546 setters and 5 getters

https://github.com/ronilan/shape-sorting 688 setters and 33 getters.

And in a code editor with a lot of ui configurations based on reusable elements 2865 setters and 206 getters.

In reactive apps on state handlers call on setters with state values. No getters involved...

▲

afdbcreid 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That means those are probably builders and not setters. Do they change an existing object or a newly-constructed or to-be-constructed object?

	▲	incrediblers 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They are setters. They modify an element after instantiation. Mostly as part of the initial build, but then also in the event closure. Under the hood, a struct with interiorly mutable fields.