Re: Modules & positive surprises
- From: kyosohma@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 27 Mar 2007 06:43:26 -0700
On Mar 27, 8:30 am, Jan Danielsson <jan.m.daniels...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello all,
<IMHO>
Although I have encountered many modules that have impressed me with
regards to what they can actually do -- too be perfectly honest, it's
very rare that I become impressed by the _interfaces_ to the modules.
Using a new module is normally, with my - admittedly - limited
experience, a pain. It's not just about reading the reference material,
and then just use it. You have to figure out how the developer who wrote
the module was thinking. Often there's a (more or less) natural way to
do things, and unfortunately that's not how module developers do it.
It's not a major issue to me personally, since the important part is
that the module can perform its function.
But then there are a few modules that I just love to use, because
they are so "clean" from interface to function. Among them I can't help
mentioning optparse.
Yesterday I found another module which I fell in love with: Python
Cryptography Toolkit (http://www.amk.ca/python/writing/pycrypt/).
It's just so ... elegant, and functional.
</IMHO>
--
Kind regards,
Jan Danielsson
Yeah. I've noticed that myself. There are tons of good modules, but a
lot of the docs are lousy. What's really annoying is that everyone
says that so-and-so is well documented. I love Python, but I wish when
they said some module was well documented, they meant that the docs
were understandable (to n00bs) as well.
Mike
.
- References:
- Modules & positive surprises
- From: Jan Danielsson
- Modules & positive surprises
- Prev by Date: Re: socket read timeout
- Next by Date: Re: Python Error :(
- Previous by thread: Modules & positive surprises
- Next by thread: Re: Modules & positive surprises
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|