This is very good questions.
Below are the points why use properties over fields, 5 reasons:
1 - Fields can’t be used in Interfaces
You can’t enforce the existence of a field in an object’s public contract through an interface. For properties though it works fine.
2 - Validation
While your application currently may not require any validation logic to set a particular value, changing business requirements may require inserting this logic later. At that point changing a field to a property is a breaking change for consumers of your API. (For example if someone was inspecting your class via reflection).
3 - Binary Serialization
Changing a field to a property is a breaking change if you’re using binary serialization. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons VB10’s auto-implemented properties have a “bindable” backing field (i.e. you can express the name of the backing field in code) – that way, if you change an auto-implemented property to an expanded property, you can still maintain serialization compatibility by keeping the backing field name the same (in C# you’re forced to change it because it generates backing fields with unbindable names).
4 - A lot of the .NET databinding infrastructure binds to properties but not fields
I’ve heard arguments on both sides as to whether or not that’s a good thing, but the reality is that’s the way it works right now. (Note from me: WPF bindings work on properties)
5 - Exposing a public field is an FxCop violation
Other different are:-
1. It may not be necessary today, but if it becomes necessary later it's a breaking change
2. Databinding works only on properties, not on fields (I think, not a big databinding user)
3. It allows to insert validations, logging, breakpoints when accessing the value.
You can also see the below link :
Happy Coding.Nandkishorre, if this helps please login to Mark As Answer. | Alert Moderator