4 ms·

This almost reads more like a list of cruft which should be removed from the stdlib (obviously not benchmark.rb though). For delegation it is probably better t

This almost reads more like a list of cruft which should be removed from the stdlib (obviously not benchmark.rb though). For delegation it is probably better to use forwardable and be explicit about delegated methods--delegate.rb smells like it uses method_missing magic.

phoronixrly 4y ago
I mean, no one's making you use this functionality, why should it be removed?
- booleandilemma 4y ago
  Not the parent, but my usual response to this is always "well someone's going to use it in the codebase, which means I'm going to have to end up using it too".
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Yeah, code maintenance isn't actually free.
- jrockway 4y ago
  Once things are in the standard library, they're basically impossible to remove, unless you want to break everyone's code and prevent them from updating. If you're making a new programming language today, the standard library is a place where you should think very carefully about everything you add. Every programmer learning the language will have to be familiar with the standard library, so keeping it small is good. But too small, and programmers will always have to reach for third-party packages without maintenance or stability guarantees. For example, you don't want to have to choose among 5 different libraries to write and run unit tests; the language should define that and it should meet everyone's needs (or be extensible with a small third-party library). I think the Rubys and the Perls of the world probably choose too much to add to the standard library, and that's where the comment you're replying to comes from. But, while it's easy to overdo the standard library, it's also bad if you underdo the standard library. Tough and sometimes under-considered aspect of language design.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    This is a very good point. Things done wrong in the standard library are often done wrong permanently and forever. Particularly given the current demands from some people for perfect backwards compatibility. Looking at the stdlib for a language like Rust it tends to feel like people who had 20+ years of experience in other languages went and thought deeply about the problem, with an understanding that accepting the design might be permanent.
  - steve_gh 4y ago
    Depends also on what you mean by the "Standard Library". Back in the day Ruby had built in language features (e.g. Innumerable), and a standard library that was bundled into the distribution (e.g. GServer). More recent versions of ruby have significantly streamlined the standard library, pushing a lot of the functionality into Gems (libraries). Given that the use of a Gemfile to list library dependencies is absolutely standard practice, the upgrade path simply involves adding a line to the Gemfile. In practice, these changes have been very well signposted before they have happened.
jacobsenscott 4y ago
I love method_missing - one simple method unlocks so much power and eliminates so much boiler plate.
- jdkoeck 4y ago
  … and ruins the life of future maintainers, there’s a reason few languages tried to borrow features from ruby’s metaprogramming (saying this as a rubyist)
  - jacobsenscott 4y ago
    Any language feature can be misused. But without it things that are easy and useful become hard.
  - sodapopcan 4y ago
    Metaprogramming is powerful for making really nice, easy-to-use _libraries_. It shouldn't ever be used for business logic. Ever. Unless you're going to go all in and make a DSL for your business, but I don't know of anyone who actually does that.
    - empthought 4y ago
      Businesses are typically the ones hiring programmers (especially Ruby ones). The smart programmers want to write libraries. This is actually a problem for businesses, because they often don't need libraries.
      - sodapopcan 4y ago
        I agree. That’s a whole blog post or essay worth of shit to unpack there, though.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      method_missing is only one tool in the metaprogramming toolbox (just probably the worst one). i wouldn't necessarily throw out the whole toolbox, particularly with ruby.
semiquaver 4y ago
You don't see much ruby anymore that uses `DelegateClass`, the primary interface to delegate.rb. It does use metaprogramming but no more than Forwardable does. Also, it's "the good kind" of metaprogramming: active at program boot only, not a whiff of method_missing. This is closer to a lisp or rust macro: code which writes code. Exactly what ruby excels at. https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/afd46429fcdb83aa9fa7c193ede40bff3f3ff151/lib/delegate.rb#L394-L444 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/afd46429fcdb83aa9fa7c193ed... SimpleDelegator is still pretty common though, I wouldn't blink if I saw that while reviewing a PR.

phoronixrly 4y ago

I mean, no one's making you use this functionality, why should it be removed?

booleandilemma 4y ago
Not the parent, but my usual response to this is always "well someone's going to use it in the codebase, which means I'm going to have to end up using it too".
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Yeah, code maintenance isn't actually free.
jrockway 4y ago
Once things are in the standard library, they're basically impossible to remove, unless you want to break everyone's code and prevent them from updating. If you're making a new programming language today, the standard library is a place where you should think very carefully about everything you add. Every programmer learning the language will have to be familiar with the standard library, so keeping it small is good. But too small, and programmers will always have to reach for third-party packages without maintenance or stability guarantees. For example, you don't want to have to choose among 5 different libraries to write and run unit tests; the language should define that and it should meet everyone's needs (or be extensible with a small third-party library). I think the Rubys and the Perls of the world probably choose too much to add to the standard library, and that's where the comment you're replying to comes from. But, while it's easy to overdo the standard library, it's also bad if you underdo the standard library. Tough and sometimes under-considered aspect of language design.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  This is a very good point. Things done wrong in the standard library are often done wrong permanently and forever. Particularly given the current demands from some people for perfect backwards compatibility. Looking at the stdlib for a language like Rust it tends to feel like people who had 20+ years of experience in other languages went and thought deeply about the problem, with an understanding that accepting the design might be permanent.
- steve_gh 4y ago
  Depends also on what you mean by the "Standard Library". Back in the day Ruby had built in language features (e.g. Innumerable), and a standard library that was bundled into the distribution (e.g. GServer). More recent versions of ruby have significantly streamlined the standard library, pushing a lot of the functionality into Gems (libraries). Given that the use of a Gemfile to list library dependencies is absolutely standard practice, the upgrade path simply involves adding a line to the Gemfile. In practice, these changes have been very well signposted before they have happened.

jacobsenscott 4y ago

I love method_missing - one simple method unlocks so much power and eliminates so much boiler plate.

jdkoeck 4y ago
… and ruins the life of future maintainers, there’s a reason few languages tried to borrow features from ruby’s metaprogramming (saying this as a rubyist)
- jacobsenscott 4y ago
  Any language feature can be misused. But without it things that are easy and useful become hard.
- sodapopcan 4y ago
  Metaprogramming is powerful for making really nice, easy-to-use _libraries_. It shouldn't ever be used for business logic. Ever. Unless you're going to go all in and make a DSL for your business, but I don't know of anyone who actually does that.
  - empthought 4y ago
    Businesses are typically the ones hiring programmers (especially Ruby ones). The smart programmers want to write libraries. This is actually a problem for businesses, because they often don't need libraries.
    - sodapopcan 4y ago
      I agree. That’s a whole blog post or essay worth of shit to unpack there, though.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    method_missing is only one tool in the metaprogramming toolbox (just probably the worst one). i wouldn't necessarily throw out the whole toolbox, particularly with ruby.

semiquaver 4y ago

You don't see much ruby anymore that uses `DelegateClass`, the primary interface to delegate.rb. It does use metaprogramming but no more than Forwardable does. Also, it's "the good kind" of metaprogramming: active at program boot only, not a whiff of method_missing. This is closer to a lisp or rust macro: code which writes code. Exactly what ruby excels at. https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/afd46429fcdb83aa9fa7c193ede40bff3f3ff151/lib/delegate.rb#L394-L444 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/afd46429fcdb83aa9fa7c193ed... SimpleDelegator is still pretty common though, I wouldn't blink if I saw that while reviewing a PR.