> So it could be argued that this magic saves you code in exchange for a need for more documentation,
But not this:
> at which point you might just be better off being more explicit in your code
Reason being that you only need to add documentation once (for the framework), and then you can have cleaner more readable code for every project using it. Yes, there’s magic enabling it, but shouldn’t need to worry about how it works if it’s well documented enough. And if you really need to know then you can read a post like this one which explains it.
That is a fair point. I guess it basically comes down to preference:
Should code be essentially self-explanatory, without needing to resort to external documentation to understand, or can frameworks be terse to the point of being a kind of DSL?
I suspect most low-level programmers prefer the former ("It's all right there"), while dynamic-language coders feel comfortable with the latter ("I only want to be explicit where it's absolutely necessary.")
As another top-level comment pointed out, Rust is interesting because it attracts both kinds of programmers, so it's no wonder the question of which approach to go with for a Rust framework isn't a trivial one to answer.
> So it could be argued that this magic saves you code in exchange for a need for more documentation,
But not this:
> at which point you might just be better off being more explicit in your code
Reason being that you only need to add documentation once (for the framework), and then you can have cleaner more readable code for every project using it. Yes, there’s magic enabling it, but shouldn’t need to worry about how it works if it’s well documented enough. And if you really need to know then you can read a post like this one which explains it.