On Friday, November 15, 2013 12:10:59 PM UTC-8, Karsten Schmidt wrote: > > 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? >
Thanks for your perspective. Regarding the last question, it's a matter of scaling. Often in production code you have to be in and out of an unfamiliar piece of code in a few hours. You can't stop to study an unfamiliar DSL for a couple days. I've heard people doing contract work in ruby swearing when they encounter another DSL: it kills their productivity. -- -- 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.
