On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 20:45, Rein Henrichs <reinh / reinh.com> wrote:
> _why's code is full of metaprogramming where simpler alternatives exist.
> Case in point: Camping. I wonder if it isn't in part to blame for the
> current Ruby fetish with metaprogramming. That said, I do love me some
> chunky bacon.

Bad choice of victim (Camping, not _why), because the whole philosophy
of Camping
is to experiment with weird Ruby code:

    No, let's not have rules.  I don't feel comfortable with having
    coding standards or any protocol on Camping.  The point of Camping
    is to have very ugly, tricky code that goes against all the rules that
    people make for "beautiful" code these days.  To show that ugly code
    can do beautiful things, maybe.

    I don't want to demonize anyone here, I just want to express the
    ideas that make Camping different.  Camping's personality is 80x50.
    It is like the little gears of a watch that are all meshed together
    into a tight little mind-bending machine.  The challenge of Camping
    isn't to figure out how to automate obfuscation.  The challenge is
    to bring new tricks into the code that push Ruby's parser and make
    everyone look twice.

    Not all code needs to be a factory, some of it can just be origami.

    _why


// Magnus Holm