pychecker proposal

Discussion in 'Python' started by Nick Jacobson, May 3, 2004.

  1. I think that PyChecker should be part of the "batteries included"
    library that comes with Python. It can be a very useful tool for
    catching errors and bad style.

    If it were in the standard library, newbies would be aware of it
    sooner. It could catch some of their mistakes, making for a smoother
    learning curve. e.g. when I started learning Python, I named a
    variable str, which caused an exception when I called str() in an
    unrelated part of the code. This led to some confusion...PyChecker
    would have flagged it as shadowing a built-in function.

    What do you guys think?
     
    Nick Jacobson, May 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nick Jacobson

    Roger Binns Guest

    Nick Jacobson wrote:
    > I think that PyChecker should be part of the "batteries included"
    > library that comes with Python. It can be a very useful tool for
    > catching errors and bad style.
    >
    > If it were in the standard library, newbies would be aware of it
    > sooner.


    I would prefer a "lint" mode to the Python interpretter that runs
    in a full warnings mode, using both static analysis that pychecker
    does as well as any dynamic analysis that could be done. I
    don't even care if it runs at half the speed of normal Python.

    Roger
     
    Roger Binns, May 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. (Nick Jacobson) wrote:

    >I think that PyChecker should be part of the "batteries included"
    >library that comes with Python. It can be a very useful tool for
    >catching errors and bad style.


    Here are a few thoughts on this.

    a) How often will it be used by how many people?

    While I acknowledge PyCheckers usefulness, I tend not to use it very
    often. Maybe I should use it more, or maybe Pythons executable pseudo
    code quality forces PyChecker to fall in the "below 1% of use cases"
    category.

    b) Is it actively supported by people that are willing to release it
    synchronously with Pythons updates?

    c) Is its license compatible with Python?

    d) Are there other packages that should be included which have more
    urgency or that would be a better tradeoff for adding to the space
    that a Python standard distribution takes?

    Pychecker is not a very big package, which would be an argument in
    favor of including it.

    OTOH, some time ago I was at an Apple Itunes demonstration. I was
    happy to immediately start a Python shell on a mac, but I also noticed
    the conspicuous absence of an impressive Python demo.

    It would be a really good idea to include a (PyGame) demo like
    solarwolf in the standard distribution. Not because it would be used
    very often but because it would add substantially to the "out of the
    box experience" which is crucial for acquiring new customers.

    IMO this alone would outweigh even the disadvantage of adding a few
    megabytes to Pythons standard distribution and the disadvantage of
    making it look less "serious" by associating it with games.

    e) Anything not mentioned above:)

    Anton
     
    Anton Vredegoor, May 4, 2004
    #3
  4. (Anton Vredegoor) wrote in message news:<4096d906$0$145$>...
    > (Nick Jacobson) wrote:
    >
    > >I think that PyChecker should be part of the "batteries included"
    > >library that comes with Python. It can be a very useful tool for
    > >catching errors and bad style.

    >
    > Here are a few thoughts on this.
    >
    > a) How often will it be used by how many people?
    >
    > While I acknowledge PyCheckers usefulness, I tend not to use it very
    > often. Maybe I should use it more, or maybe Pythons executable pseudo
    > code quality forces PyChecker to fall in the "below 1% of use cases"
    > category.
    >


    I can't speak for others, but I run every piece of code of mine
    through it. It's a safety net for typos. It explains certain bugs
    before I have to figure them out. And if nothing else, I configured
    it to tell me to put in doc strings, which comes up all the time.

    > b) Is it actively supported by people that are willing to release it
    > synchronously with Pythons updates?
    >


    Well, that might be a bit of a deal-breaker.

    > c) Is its license compatible with Python?
    >


    Not sure, but from the website,
    "We believe that code should be as bug-free as possible. We believe
    this so strongly, that we make tools freely available to help
    programmers develop more robust systems."

    > d) Are there other packages that should be included which have more
    > urgency or that would be a better tradeoff for adding to the space
    > that a Python standard distribution takes?
    >
    > Pychecker is not a very big package, which would be an argument in
    > favor of including it.
    >


    Right, it's not very big. If there are other packages that are more
    important, that's OK. But IMO PyChecker belongs in the "to be added"
    queue.

    > OTOH, some time ago I was at an Apple Itunes demonstration. I was
    > happy to immediately start a Python shell on a mac, but I also noticed
    > the conspicuous absence of an impressive Python demo.
    >
    > It would be a really good idea to include a (PyGame) demo like
    > solarwolf in the standard distribution. Not because it would be used
    > very often but because it would add substantially to the "out of the
    > box experience" which is crucial for acquiring new customers.
    >
    > IMO this alone would outweigh even the disadvantage of adding a few
    > megabytes to Pythons standard distribution and the disadvantage of
    > making it look less "serious" by associating it with games.
    >


    I think this deserves its own thread :)

    > e) Anything not mentioned above:)
    >
    > Anton
     
    Nick Jacobson, May 4, 2004
    #4
  5. "Roger Binns" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Nick Jacobson wrote:
    > > I think that PyChecker should be part of the "batteries included"
    > > library that comes with Python. It can be a very useful tool for
    > > catching errors and bad style.
    > >
    > > If it were in the standard library, newbies would be aware of it
    > > sooner.

    >
    > I would prefer a "lint" mode to the Python interpretter that runs
    > in a full warnings mode, using both static analysis that pychecker
    > does as well as any dynamic analysis that could be done. I
    > don't even care if it runs at half the speed of normal Python.
    >
    > Roger


    Yes! I completely agree. Perl has its "use strict" and "use
    warnings". Admittedly, Perl *needs* them more, but I think Python
    could use something like this too.

    Not everyone would have to use it, but IMO having the option to catch
    certain bugs (or style mistakes) before run-time would be beneficial.
     
    Nick Jacobson, May 4, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    16
    Views:
    537
  2. Tim Peters

    RE: PyChecker work with Python 2.3?

    Tim Peters, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    353
    John Machin
    Aug 4, 2003
  3. Pedro Werneck
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
    Pedro Werneck
    Aug 18, 2003
  4. F. GEIGER
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    308
    F. GEIGER
    Oct 19, 2003
  5. Neal Norwitz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    285
    Edward K. Ream
    Dec 2, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page