We often read a lot of good things about Substrate, but this blog gives an other point of view which I find interesting. Especially the “Substrate Relies Heavily on Esoteric and Over Powered Macros” paragraph @tuxmain
 anyway read the article until the end, it is a very good one!
Almost like Gavin Wood has a plan to dominate the world through Polkadot and ceremonies in castles extracted from Harry Potter movies! At least we can be sure we don’t want to be a parachain.
Do we see organic adoption of Frame? I’ve only seen paid devs wade through the macro-and-trait weeds so far. Seeing students fiddle with this voluntarily on their own time would inspire far more confidence.
Practical End-to-end Testing Doesn’t Exist in the Substrate Ecosystem
I don’t understand how developers build trust in their networks without enforcing such tests on every commit.
We have this! (almost)
I totally agree about the macros (the “chronophage” beast depicts a macro very well). However I think comments are a good thing, and too many items are under-commented in Substrate. They should enforce commenting each new commentable item in each PR, and reviewing/updating each modified item’s comment as well.
Items that need a more global documentation (like a macro that has consequences over completely unrelated stuff, and the stuff in question that is impacted by the totally unrelated macro that nobody could guess what it is for) should also be documented, even maybe in a “tutorial” style.