That's a little unfair. The "Type getX(); setX(Type t);" convention to define a "property" dates from 1997, long before anyone was autogenerating Java code. And frankly at the time it was a revelation. People who were used to writing junk like CORBA IDL suddenly saw this "beans" API using "reflection" to detect this stuff automatically, with no assistance from the programmer except adhering to a simple convention. Really, this looked amazing at the time.
But obviously it's been improved. Managed runtimes (and especially more dynamic ones like Python or Ruby or Javascript) have become the norm. The idea of inspecting the metadata of an objectat runtime is no longer so strange. So when C# or Ruby decided to implement the same kind of property interface they felt comfortable taking a few more risks.
Also, the zeitgeist has moved and values different things than it did in the 90's. At the time, clarity seemed like a valuable goal (especially in comparison to C++), so Java preferred a write-it-out-longhand style where types lived in com.domain.subdomain.module.submodule.MyClass namespaces and all the APIs were multiWordCamelCase() things. And this was intentional, and believe it or not people liked it this way. The advent of Rails and DRY (re-)popularized the idea of a "terse" API, so Java's more verbose stuff looks clunky and "bad" to modern eyes in a way that it didn't.
Basically, don't hate on Java. It was good in its day. And it sits in a more important place in history than I think you give it credit for.
But obviously it's been improved. Managed runtimes (and especially more dynamic ones like Python or Ruby or Javascript) have become the norm. The idea of inspecting the metadata of an objectat runtime is no longer so strange. So when C# or Ruby decided to implement the same kind of property interface they felt comfortable taking a few more risks.
Also, the zeitgeist has moved and values different things than it did in the 90's. At the time, clarity seemed like a valuable goal (especially in comparison to C++), so Java preferred a write-it-out-longhand style where types lived in com.domain.subdomain.module.submodule.MyClass namespaces and all the APIs were multiWordCamelCase() things. And this was intentional, and believe it or not people liked it this way. The advent of Rails and DRY (re-)popularized the idea of a "terse" API, so Java's more verbose stuff looks clunky and "bad" to modern eyes in a way that it didn't.
Basically, don't hate on Java. It was good in its day. And it sits in a more important place in history than I think you give it credit for.