[pron]

It isn't "arbitrary code." It is strictly less arbitrary and ad-hoc than Rust's macros. You can think of it more as a programmable type system, although that, too, is not very precise. As to maintenance of large codebases, it is far too early to tell, of course, but note that no low-level programming language has a great record on that front. I think it is because components in such languages are much more sensitive to the implementation details of others (i.e. all those languages have very low abstraction, i.e. the ability to hide and isolate internal implementation details), but low-level programmers know this comes with the territory, and is part of the price you pay for a high-level of control over low-level details.