I think the "stirring up" that lombok has done, is absolutely fantastic. I seem to hear about it from all over the place.
So regardless of what happens with the future of javac, or the java language, lombok will have had an impact, so I hope it keeps going, keeps pushing. Do go there ! On Sep 24, 1:26 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > I heard some disparaging remarks on the interview regarding the > potential for lombok to tackle such complex jobs as closures. > > Make no mistake about this. We're going to go there. > > We've got a gazillion tricks still up our collective sleeves. If > you're interested, scroll down to the footnote[1] for a rough sketch > on how we can make anything happen, at a relatively modest complexity > level. > > Here's the big difference between lombok's view of how new language > features ought to work, and Joe's: > > Joe thinks the programmer needs to jump through hoops. Lombok thinks > (and I am of the opinion that lombok is in the right, and Joe is > entirely in the wrong) that the software ought to be doing the > jumping. > > So, Joe's proposal of implementing a @Getter-esque boilerplate buster > via a standard annotation processor makes YOU jump through hoops: You > blow up your object hierarchy, as the getter methods neccessarily need > to go in a super or subclass. Joe blamed tool integration of > annotation processors at some point, but please look into your own > house first and address netbeans' _abysmal_ support for the processing > API! Netbeans doesn't support it _at all_ - you get your annotation > processors run solely because a 'full build' will trigger ant or > maven, which, using the vanilla javac (and not the slightly tweaked > one that's inside netbeans. One of the tweaks is to just turn all > processors off, completely!), will run annotation processors. Eclipse > has done a much better job on this: There they are run everytime you > save. (For the IntelliJ fans, intellij sucks as much as netbeans in > this regard. No support whatsoever, and like netbeans, the fact that > full builds shell out to maven/ant doesn't count). > > This is quite in opposition to lombok, where @Getter *just* *works*, > and does so transparently; people using your class will never know > you're using lombok, and it works instantaneously, and not only after > saving your file (or in netbeans/intellij: doing a full build). > > There's a theme here: We'll do _whatever_ it takes to make the > features work well from the perspective of the developer. > > Speaking of the interview: Joe and Alex: You're _entirely_ correct > about the openJDK: If javac had not been open source lombok would > never have happened. There's hope for netbeans, but IntelliJ folks: If > you're reading this, lombok is never going to go to IntelliJ unless > you integrate it yourself or get in touch with us to give us some > help. Without sources, we can't do our thing. So, thanks sun, and the > eclipse foundation, for making such fine open source products we can > (ab)use :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
