On 14 Feb, 10:15 pm, greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz wrote: >Giampaolo Rodolà wrote: >>for me it should also fit one crucial requirement: it >>should be *simple* and reflect the simplicity and "taste" of all other >>stdlib modules, and to fulfill such a requirement I think Twisted >>probably needs to be "adapted" a bit. > >My thoughts exactly -- from a bird's eye view, Twisted appears >to be very far from simple. While there may be some good ideas >to adopt from it, I suspect that finding them will require just >as much careful thought as designing an API from scratch. Can you try to be more constructive? Generalizations like this don't help the process at all. They don't explain why Twisted's APIs shouldn't be adopted in the stdlib and they don't explain what APIs _should_ be adopted. It's basically just stop energy. I'm not picking on Giampaolo because despite the small portion of his message you quoted, his full email actually contained quite a bit of useful technical information. It wasn't just an unsupported snipe. As far as the difficulties of "finding" the good ideas in Twisted goes, there are several people familiar with Twisted already contributing to this thread. Between us all, I'm sure we can dig out the insidiously buried secrets. As I mentioned before, I've also started a PEP myself to lay bare the mysteries. I may try working on it some more, since there seems to be some interest. Jean-Paul
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4