[Python-ideas] Fwd: Fwd: A PEP to define basical metric which allows to guarantee minimal code quality

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Mon Sep 25 22:53:42 EDT 2017

Forwarding my reply, since Google Groups still can't get the Reply-To
headers for the mailing list right, and we still don't know how to
categorically prohibit posting from there.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
Date: 26 September 2017 at 12:51
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Fwd: A PEP to define basical metric which
allows to guarantee minimal code quality
To: Alexandre GALODE <alexandre.galode at gmail.com>
Cc: python-ideas <python-ideas at googlegroups.com>

On 25 September 2017 at 21:49,  <alexandre.galode at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry from being late, i was in professional trip to Pycon FR.
> I see that the subject is divising advises.
> Reading responses, i have impression that my proposal has been saw as
> mandatory, that i don't want of course. As previously said, i see this "PEP"
> as an informational PEP. So it's a guideline, not a mandatory. Each
> developer will have right to ignore it, as each developer can choose to
> ignore PEP8 or PEP20.
> Perfect solution does not exist, i know it, but i think this "PEP" could,
> partially, be a good guideline.

Your question is essentially "Are python-dev prepared to offer generic
code quality assessment advice to Python developers?"

The answer is "No, we're not". It's not our role, and it's not a role
we're the least bit interested in taking on. Just because we're the
ones making the software equivalent of hammers and saws doesn't mean
we're also the ones that should be drafting or signing off on people's
building codes :)

Python's use cases are too broad, and what's appropriate for my ad hoc
script to download desktop wallpaper backgrounds, isn't going to be
what's appropriate for writing an Ansible module, which in turn isn't
going to be the same as what's appropriate for writing a highly
scalable web service or a complex data analysis job.

So the question of "What does 'good enough for my purposes' actually
mean?" is something for end users to tackle for themselves, either
individually or collaboratively, without seeking specific language
designer endorsement of their chosen criteria.

However, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it would be *entirely*
appropriate for the folks participating in PyCQA to decide to either
take on this work themselves, or else endorse somebody else taking it
on. I'd see such an effort as being similar to the way that
packaging.python.org originally started as an independent PyPA project
hosted at python-packaging-user-guide.readthedocs.io, with a fair bit
of content already being added before we later requested and received
the python.org subdomain.


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list