Hi --

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Gregory Brown wrote:

> On 1/8/06, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, <finish me later> is, in a sense, what yielding
>> implies.
>
> But is that yet another piece of the puzzle?  Is the fact that ruby
> can pass around blocks of codes as just another object part of what
> makes it suitable for metaprogramming?
>
> When does plain old dynamicity cross the line to become 'metaprogramming'?
> That's the million dollar question we've yet to answer :)

It's not that central a question to me.  In my own work with Ruby, I
can go from one month to the next without ever thinking about what
metaprogramming is, or whether or not I'm doing anything that people
would put in that category -- whereas thinking about the dynamic
nature of Ruby I've always found not only interesting but
enlightening.

I definitely don't think that metaprogramming is an extreme or higher
form of dynamism.  It's just a meta form of programming :-)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net

"Ruby for Rails", from Manning Publications, coming April 2006!
http://www.manning.com/books/black