[Python-ideas] Fwd: doctest (and.... python3000)
ethan at stoneleaf.us
Mon Feb 27 23:16:22 CET 2012
Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>> I should probably correct myself. It is suiltable, just not
>>> enjoyable. But now I know you are someone who likes all that arcana
>>> of unittest module.
>> I'm not sure about *that* -- having to exactly reproduce the output
>> of the interpreter seems kind of arcane to me. ;)
> Well, you're an interesting test case for a theory -- some people
> shouldn't be coding in python...
Wow. Talk about mixed emotions -- on the one hand I totally agree with
you, on the other I haven't been that offended in quite some time. ;)
> Python, as I see, is "the coder's language". It's meant for a
> programmers who want to write code for the sake of their art -- coding
> for him/herself firstly (and their community) and secondly for
> "industrial productions" -- shops that just churn out working apps
> without a consideration for the art.
While Python is the most enjoyable language I have ever used, I strive
for mastery and beauty in all the languages I work with. One of
Python's big strengths is it's simplicity, while still allowing for
great power (with it's data structures, exception handling, metaclasses
(okay, not so simple there ;)).
> In the latter case, tests won't be for future coders in your community,
> but for maintaining "/la machine/" -- the simple, logical machine in
> your code.
I fail to see your point here with regards to doctest versus unittest.
When I actually write the docs for my dbf module (simple Sphinx
generated at the moment), I will have examples in it and run it through
doctest. However, I will still have the unit tests as the primary test
bench for it.
As an example, for the dBase III table type there are five field types.
There is a test for a table with each possible combination (not
permutation) of one to five of those field types (okay, so I'm slightly
paranoid, too ;) -- would you really want to see that in your documentation?
> This, to me, is the primary split between those of us who still have
> high hopes for a true Python3000 (now evolved into python4000 because of
> release v3) and the rest....
Overall I am quite happy with Py3k. I seriously doubt that I would be
100% satisfied with somebody else's language simply because we are not
the same individual and so have different preferences. I can say I am
at least 95% happy with Python, which is the best approval rating I have
been able to give since Assembly.
If Python 3 is so hope-dashing, perhaps you should fork your own version?
> Accurate in your case?
That I shouldn't be using Python? No, inaccurate.
That I am part of the bunch so disappointed with Py3k that I am yearning
for Py4k? No, inaccurate.
More information about the Python-ideas