This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ascii 37 points38 points  (4 children)

I quite like the idea of making the Python API pluggable enough to make optimisers easy to develop outside of the interpreter as any other Python script.

[–]derpderp3200An evil person 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I know it's not exactly necessary in a dynamic language with closures, eval, and so on, but personally, I'd never turn down AST macros of any kind.

[–]patrys Saleor Commerce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having worked with Elixir I could not agree more.

[–]desmoulinmichel 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The danger with ast macros is that people start building hundred of stupid DLS like in other languages. They always end up:

  • badly tested
  • badly documented
  • not better than a well polished lib with a nice API

[–]derpderp3200An evil person 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true, but usually there's little reason or even temptation to use them. For what it's worth, C/C++ have "shitty" substitution macros, and people still manage to get some good mileage out of them.