# "more than enough rope" **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [December 5, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460 "2006-12-05T23:22:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Giles_B)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460/1 "2006-12-05T23:22:59Z")
I just found out that Josh S.'s cancelled presentation at RubyConf was going to be called “More than enough rope to hang yourself,” and was going to be about how to avoid misusing Ruby’s power. I’ve definitely written code where my main goal was getting my head around lambda() or things like that – now I have code on my hands where I’m trying to decide, is this beautiful, well-written stuff, or was I just indulging in a bunch of gratuitous cleverness because I had the option? Obviously this is a judgement call – but does anyone know good resources for those questions like, when do I use metaprogramming, when do I just use more normal techniques? ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Giles_B)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460/2 "2006-12-05T23:41:02Z")
Giles B. wrote: > resources for those questions like, when do I use metaprogramming, > when do I just use more normal techniques? 1. If you’re still not thinking of metaprogramming as a normal technique, then perhaps you should not use it. (But that’s a catch-22.) 2. If you go back and look at code after a week or two, and have a hard time readily understanding what’s going on, then perhaps it’s too clever. – James B. [http://web2.0validator.com](http://web2.0validator.com) - We’re the Dot in Web 2.0 [http://www.rubyaz.org](http://www.rubyaz.org) - Hacking in the Desert [http://www.jamesbritt.com](http://www.jamesbritt.com) - Playing with Better Toys ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Giles_B)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460/3 "2006-12-05T23:43:03Z")
On Dec 05, 2006, at 10:21 pm, Giles B. wrote: > resources for those questions like, when do I use metaprogramming, > when do I just use more normal techniques? I’ve wondered this too after I’ve written something that looks a bit too clever for its own good. I usually ask myself these questions: - do I only think it looks too clever because I couldn’t do it in Java? - when I come back to it 6 months later, will it be more obvious what I was doing than the longhand version? - could I factor out the cleverness into a library, or is it more of a design pattern? answers.should == %w[Yes] \* 3 # 🙂 If the test passes, it’s probably good. Usually, when something looks like Ruby for Ruby’s sake, it’s because before I wrote it, I wasn’t good enough to understand it (never figured out how that works…). If I feel like a better programmer afterwards, it stays. Ashley ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Giles_B)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460/4 "2006-12-06T00:11:09Z")
Giles B. wrote: > Obviously this is a judgement call – but does anyone know good > resources for those questions like, when do I use metaprogramming, > when do I just use more normal techniques? My personal take to the when is: Depends, sparingly if in doubt. If you’re not engaging in external code-clobbering, knock yourself out. If you can keep your own private language to your code, then if you feel that your code is indeed cleaner with metaprogramming, just go ahead and use it. The worst thing that can happen is that you’ll shoot yourself in the foot, get a subtle bug, fix it, and learn how to avoid doing it again - a gift that keeps on giving! _ducks_ However, watch it in interfaces to external code. Code to be consumed by third parties, or with high probability maintained by third parties should if nothing else keep a well-defined interface that doesn’t change on a whim except by explicit library client request with methods to do precisely that. (This doesn’t apply to libraries that are mainly metaprogramming aids like traits et al.) For code with others maintaining it, writing more exhaustive documentation is a good self-test. If you can trace back your own code like you do with the harder snippets on the mailing list in your head and unravel the workings into words up to the “Ah-hah!” point, and then put a digest of your mind’s core dump into docs, you should be set - this would imply there’s actual sense behind the meta code structure instead of just threading hacks together in something that works out yet is just a shiny notation for something trivial. David V. ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Giles_B)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460/5 "2006-12-06T03:13:34Z")
> I’ve wondered this too after I’ve written something that looks a bit > too clever for its own good. > … > Usually, when something > looks like Ruby for Ruby’s sake, it’s because before I wrote it, I > wasn’t good enough to understand it (never figured out how that > works…). If I feel like a better programmer afterwards, it stays. The “if I feel like a better programmer afterwards” thing seems to be the litmus test. The main thing I’m thinking of, it was actually a thread here a little while back, it uses eval() and instance\_variable\_set() to create a little search controller in Rails that can handle simple searches on a wide range of models. It does a lot in a very small space, I was very proud of it. In fact I love it so much that sometimes I buy it chocolates and sing to it. I showed it to somebody as a code sample, in an interview process. The person I showed it to dissed it. I told him that he must be a Philistine and a servant of Satan, and the company broke off the interview process, apparently upset that it had gotten so Biblical. Anyway, I think by these standards it qualifies as good code. I think, though, I’m going to redo it as a generator or maybe a method in the before\_filter style. The thing that the experience brought to my attention is that eval() and instance\_variable\_set() are kind of unusual for many programmers, possibly even disconcerting, and I’m beginning to think that adding a layer of indirection, like a curtain for the Wizard of Oz to stand behind, might actually be a very good thing. If you’re creating something in Rails, your client programmers can be graphic designers and marketing people. Expecting them to understand metaprogramming might be overly optimistic. ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Giles_B)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 2:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460/6 "2006-12-06T02:53:31Z")
Hi – On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Ashley M. wrote: > > option? > > understand it (never figured out how that works…). If I feel like a better > programmer afterwards, it stays. Doesn’t looking like Ruby for Ruby’s sake mean that it’s clear, expressive, elegant, and maintainable? 🙂 Those are the characteristics I associate with what I think of as the most Ruby-esque Ruby code, anyway. David ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Giles_B)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460/7 "2006-12-06T03:25:35Z")
Giles B. wrote: > thread here a little while back, it uses eval() and > instance\_variable\_set() to create a little search controller in Rails > that can handle simple searches on a wide range of models. It does a > lot in a very small space, I was very proud of it. In fact I love it > so much that sometimes I buy it chocolates and sing to it. I showed it > to somebody as a code sample, in an interview process. The person I > showed it to dissed it. I told him that he must be a Philistine and a > servant of Satan, and the company broke off the interview process, > apparently upset that it had gotten so Biblical. That’s hilarious 🙂 -Justin (Still grinning) ---
**Author:** ![Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/848f3c/32.png) [@Giles\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Giles_B)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/more-than-enough-rope/78460/8 "2006-12-06T03:41:38Z")
Giles B. wrote: > If you’re creating something in Rails, your client programmers > can be graphic designers and marketing people. Expecting them to > understand metaprogramming might be overly optimistic. > My experience has been that marketing people don’t understand marketing > and graphic designers don’t understand graphic design, but _everybody_ > thinks he or she is a programmer until required to deliver working code. > 🙂 – M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) [http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/](http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/) If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.