One of the main use-cases for compile-time metaprogramming (like macros) has been to be able to write performant code that does not type-check correctly in a typed language. Library writers encounter this issue frequently, e.g. the C++ standard library is heavily based on template metaprogramming. One example of code we want to write in a generic way are map and flatMap operations that you can define on lists, binary trees, hashmaps, rose trees and many other container-like data structures. But many typing system do not let you write the map and flatMap abstraction in a type-safe way once and for all. In dynamically typed languages, there is no such issue.
Some modern languages (Haskell, Scala) overcome the lacking expressivity for library writers with higher-kinded types and principled support for ad-hoc polymorphism (e.g. typeclasses), thus reducing the need for meta-programming. Notably, Haskell and Scala have unusually principled support for metaprogramming.
As a heuristic, I would suggest that using metaprogramming for small or medium sized normal ("business") code is a sign that something maybe be suboptimal, and it might be worth considering a different approach (either to the choice of implementing business logic or the chosen programming language.)
Comments
One of the main use-cases for compile-time metaprogramming (like macros) has been to be able to write performant code that does not type-check correctly in a typed language. Library writers encounter this issue frequently, e.g. the C++ standard library is heavily based on template metaprogramming. One example of code we want to write in a generic way are map and flatMap operations that you can define on lists, binary trees, hashmaps, rose trees and many other container-like data structures. But many typing system do not let you write the map and flatMap abstraction in a type-safe way once and for all. In dynamically typed languages, there is no such issue.
Some modern languages (Haskell, Scala) overcome the lacking expressivity for library writers with higher-kinded types and principled support for ad-hoc polymorphism (e.g. typeclasses), thus reducing the need for meta-programming. Notably, Haskell and Scala have unusually principled support for metaprogramming.
As a heuristic, I would suggest that using metaprogramming for small or medium sized normal ("business") code is a sign that something maybe be suboptimal, and it might be worth considering a different approach (either to the choice of implementing business logic or the chosen programming language.)