On Sep 18, 5:42 am, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think Lombok is a non-starter for a lot of organizations just because it's > basically its own compiler. >
No it isn't. It's probably a nonstarter if you use IDEs other than Eclipse and NetBeans, sure, but, "its own compiler"? How so? The language grammar rules do not change. > The longer version: > > I want to be able to write "a.name = foo" and not have to worry about > implementing a getter and a setter until the day where I actually need one. > When I do, I just implement it and all clients automatically get redirected > through that getter/setter. I'm not sure why you find this so important. Why is "a.name = foo" so much nicer than "a.setName(foo)"? Doesn't this entire line of arguing boil down to: I get annoyed having to manually write "getX" and "setX" methods? In which case, sure, but if solving that problem makes one a higher level than java, then java+lombok is higher level, I guess. I'm not sure thats a particularly convenient definitoin for "higher level language" - then just about any feature of any kind means "higher level". We'd need a billion levels. > I would place this one out of scope. [That was about the term "property" including the idea of change listeners] Why? GUI libraries suck without such a feature. Its quite marvelous for any type of MVC design, really. -- 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.
