JDK 9 release schedule

Brian did not state they will never do it.

Also the other languages could take advantage of it anyway, even a reiffied version of Java for example.

Furthermore, runtime specialization (as opposed to compile-time) would seem to require reified types. So that further confuses things. But you can definitely have reified types without specialization, which I think is the point that you are trying to convey.

Say you want a POJO with accessors, mutators along with equals and hashcode. Let it generate the methods by defining a class like:

  @Data
  public class something {
    String name;
    int age;
  }

  public String getName() { ... }
  public void setName(String name) { ... }
  public int getAge() { ... }
  public void setAge(int age) { ... }
  public boolean equals(Something other) { ... }
  public int hashcode() { ... }
  public String toString() { ... }

For lombok specifically, other languages have these types of features built in which of course people need to learn in order to use it.

I agree it isn't a perfect solution, but java is in dire need of boilerplate reduction features like this and lombok fills this need well.

Getters and Setters are verbose, but usually model classes are contained in a single class anyway, and can be generated automatically with any IDE. I can glance at a typical bean and ignore the code bloat without any problem.

The real issue is that Lombok generated classes don't play well with the dozens of libraries that expect Java bean style methods for auto marshaling and serialization: json generators, commons bean utils, binding libs, etc.

The savings aren't worth the trouble.

I used to be an advocate property syntax, but after seeing them used in C# and now in Swift I have completely changed my mind. It's an inconsistent mess that Java has avoided at the small price of some more lines of code (that are mostly auto generated and need no documentation)

They're quite a smell that you have no encapsulation, plus mutable state.

I find myself either

- Writing object oriented code with higher level operations that operate on data internally without exposing it via getters and setters.

or

- Value types that take values in constructor and provide naming and additional behaviour on that data (proper Value Types support will really help with this.)

or

- Data pipelines dealing with n-tuples. For which you might be tempted to reach for getters/setters but I'd tend to either use off the shelf tuple types. i.e. tuple(A,B,C) or classes with public fields, or interfaces with static factory to create instances. I'd love better support for tuples with named attributes (Like new c# has)

Loads of getters/setters is something that the frameworks of the last decade encouraged people to do but aren't really a thing any more.

Now you're left with something that could be fit on three lines (the "final" for the parameter is also useless and can be removed):

    public Foo getFoo() { return foo; }

    public void setFoo(Foo foo) { this.foo = foo; }

The C# version is about the same length:

    public Foo Foo {
        get { return foo; }
        set { foo = value; }
    }

Compare with Kotlin:

    class MyFoo(val foo: Foo)

The whole point of an object is that client code shouldn't be concerned with such details as maintaining the state of each internal field. Try and think of an object as a single thing you send high level messages to you, instead of a struct, or a bag, or a hashtable.

    public int Radius;

I believe Google is running out of solutions to further optimize Android because they keep running into self inflicted Java roadblocks. If Fuchsia is any indication of their future efforts their next major overhaul will support multiple first class languages.