Disclaimer : I'm just some moron on the Internet<p>Unpopular opinion: I hate meta programming. We have composition, why do you need to mess with the nature of things? A long time ago, I was freelancing Rails. I can't accurately describe the deflating feeling of tracing your problem back to some class that one person (a ruby guru warrior, no doubt) wrote, with a few dozen dynamic deeds or to_methods. It's the most demotivating thing I've come across in real life code.<p>It's worse somehow than complicated numeric code, because with the numbers, at least I know this shit works by the end of it. If I start writing good var names, I'll probably even figure out how it works in an hour or two<p>That being said, I'm tentatively excited about Tasty. What a witty name by the way!<p>Having the extra type information should allow for much smarter transforms at the language level and I hope macros in scala 3 aren't so much a mess.<p>Also, let's just get rid of implicits, whaddaya say? ;-)<p>Anyways, proud of the scala 3 team this far. Even though they haven't killed sbt yet, they're putting their work in admirably to a difficult problem. I'd love to have that much meaning and purpose in my own work.<p>I didn't have time to actually read spec, will do later, so if I said something inaccurate, let me know gently<p>Edit: macros will conform to black box and be constrained to their types, runs after type checking.<p>That's awesome
This post, as far as I can see, does not mention scala-meta-based macros (project called scalamacros I think) at all. What happened with this direction of macros development? Was it abandoned? Or is the new approach built on it?