You could do a lot of the lombok things as a runtime agent. I think @ToString, @EqualsAndHashCode, @Synchronized, @Getter(lazy=true), @UtilityClass, @Delegate, and @Cleanup could all be implemented in a runtime agent. Most of the rest could work as a runtime agent too as long as you were willing to type out the method signature (plus maybe a native keyword) for the things you actually want to link against at build time.
I think this would end up being way more difficult to use though and I think it would be perceived to have way more risk compared to lombok as it is now. What do you think?
Also is something wrong with paralleluniverse.co? The root domain seems to go to a gambling site?
So are you saying you no longer think OO inherently makes things harder to test?
I feel like it's difficult to talk about this without examples.
The library I like thinking about when I think of passing around in a state variable is the lua C api.
This is pretty object oriented except that it's not using C++'s syntax sugar. You can't really do much with L except pass it into other lua "methods". The discussion up until your comment seems to be about the difference between using the syntax sugar and passing around a state variable yourself.
Information hiding and these other implementation details are kind of seperate. In my example you can't just configure L exactly how you want by messing around with it or inspecting its state directly. You have to go through accessor "methods".
I think if the argument is that OO promotes information hiding I can agree with that. I'm not sure about the point about the internal state becoming a part of the API though. APIs are contracts that can be met with different implementations right? If your implementation details are public then your contract is huge and inflexible.
Isn't how you pass things into a function separate from whether you are hiding information? If your state parameter was an opaque pointer then you wouldn't necessarily be able to do anything with it. Also if your class internals were public you would be able to change anything you wanted.
I think that's been quote mined.
Here is a link to a comment by a moderator on /r/interestingasfuck that includes the context. Followed by more discussion about why he was banned from more subreddits.
I think these five moderators share power with the other moderators on each subreddit and each subreddit's mods can see each other's actions. Does this put this into the former category?
As far as what happened here the moderator for /r/interestingasfuck has been talking about it. He seems pretty open to answer questions. Maybe he could be asked if he gets paid to moderate?
In C, braces on a new line is the prevailing style? I've been doing the opposite because that's what K&R C does (except for braces that define functions).
> Now, it’s of course possible that Yahoo would have done well under Microsoft. It’s also possible that unicorns are real. There’s essentially nothing to suggest that Microsoft/Yahoo would have worked. Meanwhile, there’s plenty to suggest that the opposite would have happened — namely, what happened with aQuantive post-acquistion. And the fortunes of Yahoo since the rejection.
I think this would end up being way more difficult to use though and I think it would be perceived to have way more risk compared to lombok as it is now. What do you think?
Also is something wrong with paralleluniverse.co? The root domain seems to go to a gambling site?