> 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.
you can implement that today in java. its very easy to do so as well, heres
how
public class haha {
public String name;
}
there, now you can do your a.name = foo. not very hard. now on your
refractoring issue, do you REALLY want a language to do your refractoring
for you? i certainly don't. i think this comes down to be VERY careful
what you wish for, you might just get it.
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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]<javaposse%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
>
--
You want it fast, cheap, or right. Pick two!!
--
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.
