Metaprogramming: Ruby vs. Javascript

There is no metaprogramming going on in the JavaScript here. Closures are not metaprogramming. It's just programming. I do not want to call names, but the author does not know what he is talking about.<p>Metaprogramming inside of a running JS system would involve eval() and generating JS code from strings, which you don't want to do. It's prone to exploding in your face and the performance profile is terrible.<p>Please read the article and think about its quality before voting.

One difference I found is that Javascript has no "method_missing" call. Firefox is ahead of the pack here, as it implements a non-standard __noSuchMethod__ call, but that doesn't exist in the latest chrome or safari.<p>In addition, there's no way (that I've found) to override the subscript operator [] in javascript.

Wow, who would have thought this article would have started such a contentious thread. An interesting point is that more powerful languages blur the distinction between programming and meta-programming, weaker languages make the distinction more clear.

This project is pretty awesome: <a href="http://jsclass.jcoglan.com/" rel="nofollow">http://jsclass.jcoglan.com/</a> - Ruby-style JavaScript

I had no idea that you could define a method on a single instance with access to the current scope. I used to always call instance_variable_set before def to get the data I needed in there.