Ruby Matters: Meta-programming, Synthesis, and Generation

In my last Ruby Matters blog post, I talked about meta-programming in Ruby, contending that Ruby gives you "places to put your stuff". I always wondered about meta-programming in Smalltalk and how that compares to Ruby, and Where to Put Stuff in Smalltalk. The final piece of the puzzle came after I talked to Glenn Vanderburg (the Chief Scientist of Relevance). I was puzzled as to why the Gang of Four book (which had examples in both C++ and Smalltalk) didn't have more meta-programming. Lots of the design patterns are almost trivially easy to implement with meta-programming, but they didn't do that in the Smalltalk examples. They used the same structural approach as C++. It looks more and more to me that the Design Patterns book was really just a way to solve problems in C++ that should have been easier to solve in a more powerful language like Smalltalk. Which is why I was puzzled about the lack of of more meta-programming solutions in Smalltalk. Glenn enlightened me. One of the overriding characteristics of Smalltalk is the way code is stored, in an image file, which allows for really smart tools. The program and the environment all reside in the binary image file. There are no source files as we know them today, just the image.

A comparison about implementation details is in order, on how Ruby differs from Smalltalk. Let's talk about has_many in Ruby on Rails. Typical Rails code looks like this:

class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_many :lineitems
end

For those not familiar with Ruby, this is a method, defined as a class-level initializer (just like an instance code block in Java, a chunk of curly-brace code in the middle of a class definition, which Java picks up and executes as the class is instantiated). So, ultimately, this is the Ruby equivalent of a static method call, which gets called as the class is created.

Let's talk about Smalltalk, which has first-class meta-programming. You could easily build has_many in Smalltalk, implemented as a button you click in the browser which launches a dialog with properties that allow you to set all the characteristics embodied in the Ruby version. When you are done with the dialog, it would go do exactly what Ruby does in Rails: generate a bunch of methods, add them to the class (stuff like the find_* and count_* methods). When you are done, all the methods would be there, as instance methods of your class.

OK, so at this point, the behavior is the same in Smalltalk as in Rails. But there is one key difference: The Smalltalk version using code generation. It's a sophisticated version of a code wizard, generating the code using meta-programming techniques. The Ruby version uses code synthesis: it generates the code at runtime, not build time. Building stuff at runtime means more flexibility. But that is a minor point compared to this one: In the Smalltalk version, you use the dialog and properties to generate all the methods you need. The original impetus for the has_many intent lives only while you are running the dialog. Once you are finished, you are left with lots of imperative code. In the Ruby version, the intent stays right where you put it. When you read the class again, 6 months from now, you can clearly see that you still mean has_many. Smalltalk has the same meta-programming support, but the intent of code synthesis remains forever. That's why it's important to have a place to put your stuff. It isn't accidental in Rails that many of the DSL characteristics appear as class methods rather than code you call in the initialize method. Placing them as part of the class declaration declares intent in a big way, and keeps the code very declarative.

To summarize the similarities and differences:

1. Both Ruby and Smalltalk give you a place to put your meta-programmed stuff


2. Both give you a place to put the declaration of intent (the tool in Smalltalk, the shadow meta-class in Ruby)


3. A time in the lifecycle of the class when things happen. In the Smalltalk version, it's a one-time deal, as you use the tool to generate the code. In Ruby, the synthesis takes place at class load time. This leaves the clean, declarative code right where you put it, rather than generating a bunch of much less clear imperative code.
   

Glenn made an excellent point here: the Smalltalk version is a great example of accidental complexity, not essential complexity. Software is full of essential complexity: writing software is hard. But we end up subjecting ourselves to lots of accidental complexity in our tools and languages. And it should be stamped out. The Ruby version eliminates accidental complexity by providing a great abbreviation for the intent of has_many. This blog does a great job of illustrating the differences between abbreviations and abstractions.

Smalltalk had (and has) an awesome environment, including incredible tool support. Because the tool is pervasive (literally part of the project itself), Smalltalkers generally shied away from the kind of meta-programming described above because you have to build tool support along with the meta-programmed code. This is a conscious trade off. One of the best things about the Ruby world (up until now) is the lack of tool support, meaning that the tools never constrained (either literally or influentially) what you can do. Fortunately, this level of power in Ruby is pretty ingrained (look at Rails for lots of examples), so even when the tools finally come out, they need to support the incredible things you can do in Ruby.

Next up, "design patterns" in Ruby.

Thanks to Glenn for supplying me Smalltalk information, as a sounding board for this, and all the interesting bits, really.