> I'm a firm believer that if you write code that writes code, you are using inadequate tooling.
> Building successive abstractions is the right way of doing things.
You seem to think that "code that writes code" only addresses problems that are solvable by building successive abstractions.
Most "code that writes code" that I've seen had nothing to do with implementing abstractions. Most were implementing code based on data, database-driven-code generation if you will.
> Building successive abstractions is the right way of doing things.
You seem to think that "code that writes code" only addresses problems that are solvable by building successive abstractions.
Most "code that writes code" that I've seen had nothing to do with implementing abstractions. Most were implementing code based on data, database-driven-code generation if you will.