Stefano Masini schrieb: > On 8 Sep 2005 08:24:50 -0700, Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list