Docstrings considered too complicated
steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au
Wed Mar 3 00:32:52 CET 2010
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:51:56 +0100, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:05:25 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
> <jeanmichel at sequans.com> wrote:
>> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>> > I had hoped that everyone just read it, went like "Oh geez.", smiled
>> > it off with a hint of lesson learned and got back to whatever it was
>> > they were doing. Alas, I was wrong ... and I'm sorry.
>> There's something wrong saying that stupid people write working code
>> that totally satisfies your needs. Don't you agree ? ;-)
> No, in fact I don't.
> It works. They are supposed to make it work. And that's what they do.
> Whether or not they put their docstrings in the place they should does
> not change that their code works.
> Sorry, you guys drained all the funny out of me.
Most of the customers I've worked for have insisted we follow best
practices. Sometimes they even invent their own best practices that
nobody has even heard of, and that's fun (not). You're the first one I've
ever met that bitches publicly that your contractors don't follow best
practice, but objects strenuously to the idea that you are right to care
about that they don't.
Wow. Just... wow.
P.S. next time you want some not-quite-best-practice Python code written,
send me an email off-list. I'll be more than happy to do not-quite-best-
practice work for you.
More information about the Python-list