Why do Pythoneers reinvent the wheel?

Michael Amrhein michael at adrhinum.de
Fri Sep 9 18:06:28 CEST 2005


Stefano Masini schrieb:
> On 8 Sep 2005 08:24:50 -0700, Fuzzyman <fuzzyman at gmail.com> 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
>>pathutils - for working with paths and files
>>cgiutils - cgi helpers
>>urlpath - functions for handling URLs
>>odict - Ordered Dictionary Class
> 
> 
> Fuzzyman, your post reminded me of something I can't stop thinking
> about. Please don't take this as a critique on your work. I place
> myself on the same side of yours.
> I just wanted to share this thought with everybody had an opinion about it.
> 
> 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.
> 
> This is just too bad.
> 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 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" evil
> side lying hidden inside each one of us comes up a little too often,
> and prevents from spending more time on research of what's available.
> 
> It seems to me that this tendency is hurting python, and I wonder if
> there is something that could be done about it. I once followed a
> discussion about placing one of the available third party modules for
> file handling inside the standard library. I can't remember its name
> right now, but the discussion quickly became hot with considerations
> about the module not being "right" enough to fit the standard library.
> The points were right, but in some sense it's a pity because by being
> in the stdlib it could have had a lot more visibility and maybe people
> would have stopped writing their own, and would have begun using it.
> Then maybe, if it was not perfect, people would have begun improving
> it, and by now we would have a solid feature available to everybody.
> 
> mhm... could it be a good idea to have two versions of the stdlib? One
> stable, and one testing, where stuff could be thrown in without being
> too picky, in order to let the community decide and improve?
> 
> Again, Fuzzyman, your post was just the excuse to get me started. I
> understand and respect your work, also because you put the remarkable
> effort to make it publicly available.
> 
> That's my two cents,
> stefano

Did you take a look at pyPI (http://www.python.org/pypi) ?
At least you'd find another odict ...
;-) Michael



More information about the Python-list mailing list