On 14 Sep 2005 07:03:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefano Masini wrote:
There are a few ares where everybody seems to be implementing their
own stuff over and over: logging, file handling, ordered dictionaries,
data serialization, and maybe a few more.
I don't know
Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:24:32 -0400, François Pinard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah. I've often wished for some overview or guide that translates the
current buzzwords to old concepts I'm familiar with. For example, I'm sure
you can capture the core ideas
Claudio Grondi wrote:
To name a simplest example:
What should I do to find a piece of code taking an
integer and giving a string with binary form of a
number? How to put some available pieces of code
together if the binary form is needed and the integer
is provided as a string holding its
Stefano Masini wrote:
There are a few ares where everybody seems to be implementing their
own stuff over and over: logging, file handling, ordered dictionaries,
data serialization, and maybe a few more.
I don't know what's the ultimate problem, but I think there are 3 main
reasons:
1) poor
François Pinard wrote:
In computer
science, I often saw old concepts resurrecting with new names, and then
mistaken for recent inventions. New ideas are not so frequent...
There are very few problems in Computer Science that cannot be solved
with an additional level of indirection.
--
Here some of my thougts on this subject:
I think that this question adresses only a tiny
aspect of a much more general problem the
entire human race has in any area.
Reinventing the wheel begins when the grandpa
starts to teach his grandchild remembering well
that he has done it already many
Stefano Masini a écrit :
(snip)
If such a quick and dirty section existed, I think it would also
become a natural randevouz point for innovators.
s/randevouz/rendez-vous/ !-)
pardon-my-french-ly y'rs
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Stefano Masini wrote:
SNIP
I wonder how many people (including myself) have implemented their own
versions of such modules, at least once in their pythonic life. I
indeed have my own odict (even same name! :). My own pathutils
(different name, but same stuff). My own validate... and so
On 10 Sep 2005 02:10:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As someone who implemented their own configuration mini-language
with validation, blah, blah, blah
(http://www.tundraware.com/Software/tconfpy/)
Well, a configuration mini language with validation and blahs is not
exactly what
Stefano Masini wrote:
On 10 Sep 2005 02:10:59 EDT, Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As someone who implemented their own configuration mini-language
with validation, blah, blah, blah
(http://www.tundraware.com/Software/tconfpy/)
Well, a configuration mini language with validation
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
1) The existing tool is inadequate for the task at hand and OO subclassing
is overrated/overhyped to fix this problem. Even when you override
base classes with your own stuff, you're still stuck with the larger
*architecture* of the original design. You really
: Why do
Pythoneers reinvent the wheel?
Reinventing the wheel (too much) is Bad for both the open source
community and industry. It's bad for development in general. I got the
feeling that in the specific case of Python the ultimate reason for
this tendency in also the same reason why this language
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
1) The existing tool is inadequate for the task at hand and OO subclassing
is overrated/overhyped to fix this problem. Even when you override
base classes with your own stuff, you're still stuck with the larger
*architecture* of the
to make was there are times when
a generic factoring of reusable code is unimportant since the code
is so purpose-built that doing a refactoring makes no sense.
What I was pointing out is well summarized in the subject: Why do
Pythoneers reinvent the wheel?
Reinventing the wheel (too much
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:53:24 +0200,
Stefano Masini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, so we might as well learn a little more and rewrite os.path, the
time module and pickle. Right? :)
And in fact people have done all of these:
os.path: path.py
Michael Amrhein wrote:
Stefano Masini schrieb:
On 8 Sep 2005 08:24:50 -0700, Fuzzyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is pythonutils ?
=
ConfigObj - simple config file handling
validate - validation and type conversion system
listquote - string to list conversion
Stefano Masini wrote:
cut reinventing wheel example
Although I'm not experienced enough to comment on python stuff itself I
do know that in general there are 2 reasons that people reinvent the wheel:
- They didn't know of the existence of the first wheel
- They have different roads
Those
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
PEP 206 (http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0206.html) suggests assembling an
advanced library for particular problem domains (e.g. web programming,
scientific programming), and then providing a script that pulls the relevant
packages off PyPI. I'd like to hear suggestions of
Stefano Masini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be great if there was a section in the Python manual like this:
Quick and Dirty: Commonly needed tricks for real applications
1. odict
2. file system management
3. xml (de)serialization
4. ...
Each section would describe the problem and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, one of Python's greatest virtues is its ability to shift paradigms
in mid-program so that you can use the model that best fits your problem
space. IOW, Python is an OO language that doesn't jam it down your
throat, you can
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dave Brueck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many projects (Python-related or not) often seem to lack precisely
what has helped Python itself evolve so well - a single person with
decision power who is also trusted enough to make good decisions, such
that when disagreements
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:55:51 +0200, Martin P. Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Stefano Masini wrote:
cut reinventing wheel example
Although I'm not experienced enough to comment on python stuff itself I
do know that in general there are 2 reasons that people reinvent the wheel:
- They didn't
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On 10 Sep 2005 05:36:08 EDT, Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
On a more general note, for all the promises made over 3 decades about
how OO was the answer to our problems, we have yet to see quantum
OO goes
[Tim Daneliuk]
OO ideas predate C++ considerably. The idea of encapsulation and
abstract data types goes back to the 1960s IIRC.
Did not Simula-67 have it all already?
When C++ came along, much later, I asked someone knowledgeable in the
field of language design what was his opinion about
Bengt Richter wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:55:51 +0200, Martin P. Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Stefano Masini wrote:
cut reinventing wheel example
Although I'm not experienced enough to comment on python stuff itself I
do know that in general there are 2 reasons that people reinvent
On 8 Sep 2005 08:24:50 -0700, Fuzzyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is pythonutils ?
=
ConfigObj - simple config file handling
validate - validation and type conversion system
listquote - string to list conversion
StandOut - simple logging and output control object
Stefano Masini schrieb:
On 8 Sep 2005 08:24:50 -0700, Fuzzyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is pythonutils ?
=
ConfigObj - simple config file handling
validate - validation and type conversion system
listquote - string to list conversion
StandOut - simple logging and output
Stefano Masini wrote:
I don't know what's the ultimate problem, but I think there are 3 main
reasons:
1) poor communication inside the community (mhm... arguable)
2) lack of a rich standard library (I heard this more than once)
3) python is such an easy language that the I'll do it myself
Stefano Masini wrote:
I wonder how many people (including myself) have implemented their own
versions of such modules, at least once in their pythonic life. I
indeed have my own odict (even same name! :). My own pathutils
(different name, but same stuff). My own validate... and so forth.
On 9/9/05, Michael Amrhein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you take a look at pyPI (http://www.python.org/pypi) ?
At least you'd find another odict ...
Oh, yeah. And another filesystem abstraction layer... and another xml
serialization methodology... :)
PyPI is actually pretty cool. If I had to
On 9/9/05, djw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, for me, this most important reason is that the stdlib version
of a module doesn't always completely fill the requirements of the
project being worked on. That's certainly why I wrote my own, much
simpler, logging module. In this case, its
On 9/9/05, Dave Brueck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
shot). The cost of developing _exactly_ what you need often is (or at least
*appears* to be) the same as or lower than bending to use what somebody else
has
already built.
That's right. But as you say, this is _often_ the case, not always.
One
32 matches
Mail list logo
