[frant-hartm]

Complain to the author of your direct dependencies (or better send a PR if open source). There is absolutely no reason why lombok should get pulled in as transitive dependency apart from ignorance on library author side.

[pjmlp]

I rather get rid of them when possible, instead of indirectly contributing to lombok's existence.

[beeboobaa3]

It's clear you are just spiteful and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Lombok does not get pulled in as a transitive dependency unless the author of your dependency fucked up their build. RTFM and you're good. Even if they fucked up, you can just exclude the transitive dependency. Easy.

Lombok produces bytecode that could have been written by hand. You will not be able to tell the difference when using these compiled classes.

[pjmlp]

Except you are forgetting that building dependencies from source is also something that happens in real life, as it is opening such projects in IDEs.

In one thing you are right, I make my life easier by choosing other alternatives when possible.

[zbentley]

Wouldn’t BFS only require Lombok’s presence at the build step rather than after deployment?

Or is your stance here against it showing up a a transitive during development when including sources written with Lombok? If so, that’s pretty extreme; the build dependency surface of many packages is really huge. Do you have issues with other large or opinionated build depends (protoc, schema downloaders like buf, test frameworks)?

[beeboobaa3]

Rather uncommon in the java world. Anyway, you can just delombok if you hate it so much.