On 1/9/06, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:

> > 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.

Same here.  My concern is with the fear it seems to cause in people
migrating from the static world.  I honestly am very lazy and simply
do not want to argue the static vs. dynamic typing, early binding vs
open class structure, compile vs. runtime arguments anymore.  So, I'm
trying to write a well formed article I can point people to ;)

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

well said.