Crystal in Production: Diploid

Re:Crystal in Production: Diploid by look_lookatme on Saturday October 28, 2017 @09:50AM (#15575134)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Crystal in Production: Diploid by odammit on Saturday October 28, 2017 @12:03PM (#15575550)

Yep. It’s not annoying in libraries or frameworks, but when you see engineers meta programming business logic it makes me sad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Crystal in Production: Diploid by VeejayRampay on Saturday October 28, 2017 @05:47PM (#15576860)

Why 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Crystal in Production: Diploid by odammit on Saturday October 28, 2017 @07:18PM (#15577194)

So can composition.

It makes me sad for the reason you said, it’s most often abused.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Crystal in Production: Diploid by unixhero on Sunday October 29, 2017 @04:41AM (#15578544)

Thank 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]