3 ms·
It's a personal preference, but I'm talking specifically about most meta programming functionality (eval, define_method, etc...). It can lead to obtuse code in
by look_lookatme 9y ago
It's a personal preference, but I'm talking specifically about most meta programming functionality (eval, define_method, etc...). It can lead to obtuse code in the hands of both experts and beginners who are looking for the most clever way to DRY up code.
And if it that were the worst part of meta programming, that might be ok, but it's not because the existence of meta programming puts ceiling on just how fast the Ruby runtime can be.
- odammit 9y agoYep. It’s not annoying in libraries or frameworks, but when you see engineers meta programming business logic it makes me sad.
- VeejayRampay 9y agoWhy does it? If the metaprogramming is readable and sound, I don't see where the problem is. Most of the time, good meta-programming can turn 30 lines into 5, which is not systematically better for the reader, but can help avoid some of the most mundane repetition. It's true that it shouldn't be abused and it most often is, but it does have its place.
- odammit 9y agoSo can composition. It makes me sad for the reason you said, it’s most often abused.
- unixhero 9y agoThank you for the insightful response. I'll never ever touch upon these areas, so I still hold Ruby to a high regard. It simply is fun.