To me macros & DSLs are just an instance/extension of the DRY principle and not that much different to using functions (albeit with more syntactic freedom, e.g. by supplying a body expression to be wrapped or transformed into something more complex). Of course there's the potential loss of control & understanding when using 3rd party macros, but in Clojure the use of library macros is often hardly enforced without also having a purely functional way as alternative. I think the stronger reliance on certain naming conventions (e.g. in RoR) or the type specific overriding of operators in C++ has much more of a magical/mysterious element to it than most of the CLJ macros I've been using thus far. Last but not least, since most libs are open source, what stops you from studying a specific macro/DSL?
My 2p... On 15 Nov 2013 19:51, "Brian Craft" <craft.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pulling this from another thread: > > On Nov 14, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Sean Johnson <bel...@acm.org> wrote: > > The magic of meta-programming (Ruby) vs. magic of macros (Clojure) vs. no > magic (Python). This probably comes down to personal preference, and so is > a potential benefit of any of them, depending on your preference, but it's > a significant difference, so it's worth pointing out. By "magic" I just > mean when the system seems to be more doing something much more powerful > than you can readily see just by looking at the code. A simple few lines of > code are doing all these wondrous things that aren't spelled out completely > in the code (unless you peek under the covers and can understand the black > arts that lie there). In Ruby/Rails this is the result of a lot of > metaprogramming happening, based on conventions (that must be learned). In > Clojure this happens through macros that implement powerful DSLs. In > Python, it doesn't happen nearly as much. Code tends to be more transparent. > > > > This description of ruby, clojure, and python very much matches my > experience (though with ruby I'm relying on the accounts of other > developers that I know, since I haven't personally used ruby). > > Why are black arts and opaque code desirable? It's almost a tautology that > these things are unmaintainable: you can't maintain code if you can't > readily understand it, e.g. if it depends on "black arts", or is not > transparent. > > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
