Builder pattern vs. config object

Question

The builder pattern is popular to create immutable objects, but there is some programming overhead to create a builder. So I wonder why not simply using a config object.

Answer 1

I personally feel that the builder pattern at first sight offers you cleaner code where these objects are in fact used. On the other hand, not having getters/setters will not be very usable by a lot of frameworks that expect camel case getters/setters. This is a serious draw back I feel.

What I also like with getters/setters is that you clearly see what you are doing: get or set. I feel with the builder I am losing a bit of intuitive clarity here.

I know that many people have read a specific book and that now all of a sudden, the builder pattern has enjoyed the hype, as if it were the new iPhone. However, I am not an early adopter. I only use "the new way" when it really really proves a big time saver on whatever territory, being it performance, maintenance, coding...

My hands-on experience is that I usually am better of with getters/setters and constructors. It allows me to reuse these POJO's for any purpose.

Although I see the purpose of your Config Object, I also think it is even more overhead than the builder, and for what? What is wrong with setters?

Maybe we need to invent a WITH clause: example, let's say you have

public Class FooBar() {
    private String foo;

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

    public String getFoo() { 
        return this.foo; 
    }
}

public static void main(String []args) {

 FooBar fuBar = new FooBar();
 String myBar;

 with fuBar {
    setFoo("bar");
    myBar = getFoo(); 
 }
}

Ah I dunno... I think this may yet result in quicker code writing without all the inner class hassle. Does any one have connections with the Oracle Java guru's?

It doesn't look as clean as using an object with a builder, but you save builder-construction time. And you can still use the class as a regular pojo/bean which can be used in frameworks...

Would you guys actually like this clause or you think it would rather suck? Cheers