5 ms·
It's been widely understood in the Ruby community for some time now that metaprogramming—like in the example above—should generally be limited to framework or l
by chris12321 1y ago
It's been widely understood in the Ruby community for some time now that metaprogramming—like in the example above—should generally be limited to framework or library code, and avoided in regular application code.
Dynamically generated methods can provide amazing DX when used appropriately. A classic example from Rails is belongs_to, which dynamically defines methods based on the arguments provided:
class Post < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :user
end
This generates methods like:
post.user - retrieves the associated user
post.user=(user) - sets the associated user
post.user_changed? - returns true if the user foreign key has changed.
- t-writescode 1y agoAren’t all these enhancement methods that are added dynamically to every ActiveRecord a major reason why regular AR calls are painfully slow and it’s better to use .pluck() instead? One builds a whole object from pieces, the other vomits put an array?
- chris12321 1y agoIt's simply not true that "regular AR calls are painfully slow." In the context of a web request, the time spent instantiating Active Record objects is negligible. For example, on my laptop: Customer.limit(1000).to_a completes in about 10ms, whereas: Customer.last(1000).pluck(:id, :name, :tenant_id, :owner_id, :created_at, :updated_at) runs in around 7ms. Active Record methods are defined at application boot time as part of the class, they're not rebuilt each time an instance is created. So in a typical web app, there's virtually no performance penalty for working with Active Record objects. And when you do need raw data without object overhead, .pluck and similar methods are available. It’s just a matter of understanding your use case and choosing the right tool for the job.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]