No dude. The solution is not to use the builder pattern period. Just have a function/constructor with 50 parameters.
Why? Because the instantiated object requires all 50 parameters to be fully realized. Having to call 50 separate setters means you can create an "invalid" object where only 23 setters are called. Why allow this to happen at all? It's like a null value, why allow that value to exist on a type?
If you need all 50 parameters to be fully realized, then the logical thing to do is to only allow the object to exist with all 50 parameters in place. A constructor with 50 parameters insures that this fact is reality. It's that simple.
Yet even you, with the answer right in front of your nose staring you in the face still thought that you 50 setters is okay with syntactical sugar! That's how powerful cognitive bias is with design patters. "Builder pattern" is a word that lends a sort of artificial aura into what is essentially stupidly dividing up a constructor into 50 setters for no good reason.
Why? Because the instantiated object requires all 50 parameters to be fully realized. Having to call 50 separate setters means you can create an "invalid" object where only 23 setters are called. Why allow this to happen at all? It's like a null value, why allow that value to exist on a type?
If you need all 50 parameters to be fully realized, then the logical thing to do is to only allow the object to exist with all 50 parameters in place. A constructor with 50 parameters insures that this fact is reality. It's that simple.
Yet even you, with the answer right in front of your nose staring you in the face still thought that you 50 setters is okay with syntactical sugar! That's how powerful cognitive bias is with design patters. "Builder pattern" is a word that lends a sort of artificial aura into what is essentially stupidly dividing up a constructor into 50 setters for no good reason.