> Of course, I could have been referring to myself in that accusation, > no? I even specifically avoided mentioning Scala in this thread > because I know it is a hot nerve for some of you. (I did throw in a > Clojure reference, that didn't seem to upset anyone. Granted I did so > in a way referring to other languages, of which I consider Lombok to > be one.) > > I hate that you feel I was unjust in the statement. I stand by my > opinion that you bring it up too often in topics that don't > necessarily call for it. >
I think it's fair to invoke Lombok at times when it's relevant to mention any other JVM language as a viable solution to some problem, and Reinier does only tend to mention it where relevant. What's not so fair is to suggest that Lombok is somehow more "pure Java" than, say, Scala or Clojure (again, I'm not blaming any particular individuals of this). Just trying to work on a Lombok-based project in IntelliJ demonstrates how this isn't true. For the record, I consider the choice to use Lombok, Scala, Clojure, or even an all-encompassing framework like Spring to be roughly equivalent in terms of risk, need for learning, and requirements for tooling support. -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
