On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Ed Kellett <e+python-l...@kellett.im> wrote: > On 2018-06-13 05:24, Chris Angelico wrote: >> Oh wait, your code isn't anything remotely sane. But for the rest of >> us, large files aren't a problem. > > I don't like large files--I think mostly because files are an > organisational tool, they're quite good at that job, and one might as > well use them. But slightly more concretely, Python encourages us to use > module scope for things like imports, which can easily get messy and > confusing when files are large. A find feature isn't a replacement for a > global scope that's small enough to remember. >
It's more his definition of "large" and "small" that I was disagreeing with. You're absolutely right that a dense global scope is a problem; but a "one class per file" rule is a terrible idea. A hundred tiny files is far harder to work with than ten medium-sized files, and IMO a single file with all the code in it is only slightly worse. That is to say, I would prefer to work with a single gigantic file than a directory with lots and lots of tiny interdependent files, each one importing six or seven others. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list