Debugging suggestions, efficiency - handling modules

[Almar Klein]

You might like IPython, it is an interactive python shell and you caneasily
run scripts from it. That way, the active session remains, as well
as all the imports.

Personally, I don't like the "from pylab import *", the python philosophy
says:
"Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!"
not "let's do less of those". In understand that by doing import * your
environment feels a bit more like Matlab, but I think the absense of
namespaces in Matlab is a weakness, not a strength.

I find that using "import pylab as pl" and then typing "pl." Gets me a list
of all
the nice pylab stuff, without polluting my global namespace...

Cheers,
  Almar

2008/10/10 Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilliers at websiteburo.invalid>

> John [H2O] a écrit :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am writing some scripts that run a few calculations using scipy and plot
>> the results with matplotlib (i.e. pylab). What I have found, however, is
>> that the bulk of the time it takes to run the script is simply in loading
>> modules.
>>
>
> Is this loading time really that huge ???
>
>  Granted, I am currently using:
>> from pylab import *
>>
>> However, changing this to the specific classes/functions doesn't make a
>> significant difference in the execution time.
>>
>
> Indeed. the 'import' statement does two things : first load the module and
> cache it (so following imports of the same module will access the same
> module object), then populate the importing namespace. Obviously, the
> 'heavy' part is the first import of the module (which requires some IO and
> eventual compilation to .pyc).
>
>  Is there a way to have the modules stay loaded?
>>
>
> where ?
>
> But rerun the script?
>
> Each execution ('run') of a Python script - using the python
> /path/to/my/script syntax or it's point&click equivalent - starts a new
> Python interpreter process, which usually[1] terminates when the script ends
> (wether normally, or because of a sys.exit call or any other exception).
>
> [1] using the -i option keeps the interpreter up, switching to interactive
> mode, after execution.
>
>  One
>> solution I can think of is to set break points,
>>
>
> ???
>
>  and design my scripts more
>> as 'functions', then just run them from the command line.
>>
>
> You should indeed write as much as possible of your scripts logic as
> functions. Then you can use the " if __name__ == '__main__': " idiom as main
> entry point.
>
> Now if you're going to use the Python shell as, well, a shell, you may want
> to have a look at IPython, which is a much more featurefull:
>
> http://ipython.scipy.org/moin/Documentation
>
>
> HTH
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20081010/2c65f4ee/attachment-0001.html>