organizing your scripts, with plenty of re-use

[Processor-Dev1l]

On Oct 5, 8:29 pm, Robert Kern <robert.k... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-10-05 12:42 PM, Buck wrote:
>
>
>
> >> With the package layout, you would just do:
>
> >>     from parrot.sleeping import sleeping_in_a_bed
> >>     from parrot.feeding.eating import eat_cracker
>
> >> This is really much more straightforward than you are making it out to be.
>
> > As in the OP, I need things to "Just Work" without installation
> > requirements.
> > The reason for this is that I'm in a large corporate environment
> > servicing many groups with their own custom environments.
>
> The more ad hoc hacks you use rather than the standard approaches, the harder it
> is going to be for you to support those custom environments.
>
> > Your solution requires work and knowledge on the user's part,
>
> *All* solutions require work and knowledge. There is no free lunch. The
> advantage of standard Python packages is that they are understood the best and
> the most widely.
>
> > but Stef
> > seems to be actually solving the complexity problem. It may seem
> > trivial to you, but it's beyond many people's grasp and brings the
> > usability and reliability of the system way down.
>
> > Like Stef, I was unable to grasp how to properly use python packages
> > in my environment even after reading the documentation repeatedly over
> > the course of several months.
>
> I do believe that you and Stef are exceptions. The vast majority of Python users
> seem to be able to grasp packages well enough.
Well, I started using python many years ago (when there were no
packages), so I am used to manage such messy files as described above.
But it is true that for building larger solution I always use
packages, it just looks better :).
So my solution:
Packages for job tasks and one big messy folder for my private usage
(system administration tasks, automation, etc).
>
> --
> Robert Kern
>
> "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
>   that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
>   an underlying truth."
>    -- Umberto Eco