JavaCPP VS record-builder

JavaCPP and presets for working with JNI

In the meantime you might want to check out JavaCPP: https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp

Maybe you can use JavaCPP?

Here is the code for JNI, which uses the prebuilt JavaCPP library to call the getpid function. We don't have to write all the manual C binding code and rituals as the JavaCPP library already does it.

Javacpp is the best ffi library of all https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp

As for our approach, we maintain a library called javacpp: https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp which proves a python wheel like experience where we distribute natively optimized c/c++ code (and even cuda accelerated code) as jar files on maven central. We also are able to develop with a python like experience by passing pointers around and other low level constructs directly allowing optimizations that you typically only get in c/c++.

https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp

* it maps naturally and efficiently many common features afforded by the C++ language and often considered problematic, including overloaded operators, class and function templates, callbacks through function pointers, function objects (aka functors), virtual functions and member function pointers, nested struct definitions, variable length arguments, nested namespaces, large data structures containing arbitrary cycles, virtual and multiple inheritance, passing/returning by value/reference/string/vector, anonymous unions, bit fields, exceptions, destructors and shared or unique pointers (via either try-with-resources or garbage collection), and documentation comments*

I did not try myself, but for JNI maybe this could make lives easier? https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp

The problem with this approach is that the people will have to build crutches like https://github.com/Randgalt/record-builder and by the time Java adds missing features all the codebases will be forever polluted with legacy workarounds that nobody will dare to remove because of backwards compatibility.

It also hinders adoption of new features as people will prefer to maintain consistency in their codebases.

Record builder is pretty good for making builders for your Java 17 records

I always have to bring up RecordBuilder simply because of the included Withers and it being a source generator instead of the Lombok weirdness.

The above is not particularly user-friendly. Luckily compiler plugins can provide the missing feature, most notably RecordBuilder:

For records, instead of lombok you can use https://github.com/Randgalt/record-builder which is a valid annotation processor and will not break on JDK changes

In this particular case you can generate the builder with something like https://github.com/Randgalt/record-builder that is both valid java and lombok-like enough

Records + Record Builder or immutables + the trick to hide the implementing class w/sealed are your friend. Both the mutability and naming conventions this generates are vomitus.

Did you use https://github.com/Randgalt/record-builder ?

Try my annotation processor. It generates withers. https://github.com/Randgalt/record-builder

I personally don't use that one much, but you could use this library instead.