3 ms·
I have noticed that Ruby tends to move towards more magic which is true in this case. I don't see any benefits at all from this.
by hashhar 5y ago
I have noticed that Ruby tends to move towards more magic which is true in this case.
I don't see any benefits at all from this.
- gls2ro 5y agoI dont think a programming language can be _magic_ when talking about syntax. Syntax is something that one knows or dont know but no magic is there. It is like saying limit in math is magic. I could agree that we can evaluate if it is magic a library or a standard library. More to the point: In the Ruby apps that I saw so far and articles I read I get a different feeling: more and more the community is promoting clarity, explicitness, simplicity. I somehow feel that from Ruby 2 forward metaprogramming is seen as last resort. Almost no guideline promotes magic in Ruby code by default. More syntax is actually removing the need to do “magic tricks” with the language. It makes explicit in some cases some things that people were doing with DSLs. I feel that magic was more present in Ruby 1.9 for example than now even if syntax was more limited. I was solving a lot of things with metaprogramming, monkey patching, calling private attributes and more. Now I will not approve my own code from back then if I will see it in an MR.