Mailing List Archive

Over my programming life, I have used a 'cowboy' programming style.
Once I have a general idea for a solution to a problem, I start
coding, using the text editor as sort of an etch-o-scetch. This works
fine for programs under about 10klocs (thousand lines of code), but it
is rather fragile and doesn't hold up to larger programs or the
requested additions of un-anticipated features.

I've noticed the acedemic and industry attempts to solve the problem.
OOA/OOD, UML, design patterns, et al are all proposed solutions.

Meanwhile, languages like Ansi Common Lisp have had features that
allow you to prototype and build a large system at the same time.
That is, the specification of the system becomes the system. People
have done the same thing with Visual Basic, so I am told.

What I am wondering about is the suitability of Python for specifying,
a large system and building a prototype. I have gotten myself rather
entrenched in the cowboy style and I would love it if Python supported
that for larger systems.

One other thing. Is the documentation that comes with Python
sufficient to gain mastery of the language, or should I consider
buying (yet) another book?

--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com

If you wish to reply by mail, _please_ replace 'trashcan' with 'david'
in the e-mail address. The trashcan account really is a trashcan.

A long memory is the most subversive idea in America.

David Steuber wrote:

[.snip interesting discussion on prototype building/RAD of large systems
with Python]

I'm interested in what other people will have to say about this -- don't
know anything myself now though. :)

> One other thing. Is the documentation that comes with Python
> sufficient to gain mastery of the language, or should I consider
> buying (yet) another book?

If you're already a fairly experienced programmer (with some idea of
what object oriente programming is), the Python tutorial is an excellent
way to get started. The library reference is very helpful. The language
reference is useful when there are tricky bits. Then there's the
newsgroup for questions, of course.

I haven't had any problem figuring out Python using the standard Python
documentation, along with the newsgroup, myself. There *are* still
tricky bits (like using a mutable object as a default argument), but in
general I haven't found Python hard to learn at all.

Regards,

Martijn

>What I am wondering about is the suitability of Python for specifying,
>a large system and building a prototype. I have gotten myself rather
>entrenched in the cowboy style and I would love it if Python supported
>that for larger systems.
My first contacts with Python were with JPython. I got interested for it's
use in unit-testing Java-classes. Now I am building prototypes with C-Python
and I love it.
Both the C and Java versions allow me to harden the code and transform the
Proto to
production code, if speed is necessary

To build larger systems you need classes and modules for abstraction and
reuse.
To build proto's you need interactive programming and short code-debug
cycles.
Need GUI's? MFC or tcl/tk?
Networking, Parsers, XML, HTML, regex?

ehh, Python?

> One other thing. Is the documentation that comes with Python
> sufficient to gain mastery of the language, or should I consider
> buying (yet) another book?


The online-documentation and examples were sufficient for me, but I love
paper refs and
everbody should have Programming Python

David Steuber <trashcan@david-steuber.com> writes:

| One other thing. Is the documentation that comes with Python
| sufficient to gain mastery of the language, or should I consider
| buying (yet) another book?

If you've done a bunch of programming before, the Tutorial in the
online docs should serve you well.

I recently read through Learning Python and thought it was excellent.
One nice thing is that it presents a bunch of the standard modules,
which otherwise you have to learn simply by reading the reference.

I would recommend either of those as an introduction to the language
over Programming Python. You'll want to pick it up at some point (I
found its discussion on embedding Python to be very useful, for
example), but I found it difficult to learn the language from; the
reader is overwhelmed with detail from the very start.

--
Dan Schmidt -> dfan@harmonixmusic.com, dfan@alum.mit.edu
Honest Bob & the http://www2.thecia.net/users/dfan/
Factory-to-Dealer Incentives -> http://www2.thecia.net/users/dfan/hbob/
Gamelan Galak Tika -> http://web.mit.edu/galak-tika/www/

David Steuber wrote:
>
> Over my programming life, I have used a 'cowboy' programming style.
> Once I have a general idea for a solution to a problem, I start
> coding, using the text editor as sort of an etch-o-scetch. This works
> fine for programs under about 10klocs (thousand lines of code), but it
> is rather fragile and doesn't hold up to larger programs or the
> requested additions of un-anticipated features.
>
> I've noticed the acedemic and industry attempts to solve the problem.
> OOA/OOD, UML, design patterns, et al are all proposed solutions.
> ...
>
> What I am wondering about is the suitability of Python for specifying,
> a large system and building a prototype. I have gotten myself rather
> entrenched in the cowboy style and I would love it if Python supported
> that for larger systems.

Not sure what your "cowboy" style looks like, but Python is just
great for designing well-organized OO apps with components using
pattern paradigms [...add all your favorite buzzwords here...].

Projects around 50k are still well manageable using an editor
like Xemacs; larger projects probably need the help of systems
like SNIFF (which offers Python support).

--
Marc-Andre Lemburg Y2000: 248 days left
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Python Pages >>> http://starship.skyport.net/~lemburg/ :
---------------------------------------------------------

David Steuber <trashcan@david-steuber.com> wrote:
<snip>
: Meanwhile, languages like Ansi Common Lisp have had features that
: allow you to prototype and build a large system at the same time.
: That is, the specification of the system becomes the system. People
: have done the same thing with Visual Basic, so I am told.
:

Yes, they do. I should know - I'm working on a whopping great
big laboratory erp system built in Visual Basic. First there was
the prototype and it looked like a Windows program. Then there wasn't
enough time to start again and discard the prototype, so the prototype
became the specification, and in time, the system. Then the project
was delayed by about a year. Then there were performance problems
caused by conceptual errors that had to be rectified by hacking around.
Then suddenly, the whole blasted !@#$%^&* was more than ten million
lines, more than hundred dll's, numerous OCX'es, and countless forms,
all built by twenty to thirty novices in the art of programming, of whom
fifteen had left the company. It's more than painful or embarrasing...
And it's not the first time I've seen that happen. Sorry for the rant -
I just had to get it of my chest. I don't think Python really insures
you against these mistakes.

:
: One other thing. Is the documentation that comes with Python
: sufficient to gain mastery of the language, or should I consider
: buying (yet) another book?
:

I didn't find the online information quite enough - but the book
I got, Internet Programming with Python, isn't much better. It's a
bit too fond of telling me how not to do things, instead of how
things work. But that's just personal prejudice, and I think I just
should have bought Programming Python instead.
--

Boudewijn Rempt | www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt

Hi!

Ilja Heitlager wrote:

> > One other thing. Is the documentation that comes with Python
> > sufficient to gain mastery of the language, or should I consider
> > buying (yet) another book?
>
> The online-documentation and examples were sufficient for me, but I love
> paper refs and
> everbody should have Programming Python

Well, I found Programming Python a bit too narrating.. I usually just
want
a quick overview of function or who I do this or that. Thus the library
reference + the FAQ + The Python Quick Reference was quite enough for
me..
(There are some interesting boxes in Programming Python though).
But actually I also had programming experience before.

best,
Christian

>Yes, they do. I should know - I'm working on a whopping great
>big laboratory erp system built in Visual Basic. First there was
>the prototype and it looked like a Windows program.

[Very nice anekdote about (failure of) software management]

> I don't think Python really insures you against these mistakes.


You are right, maybe

The Commando Returns by David Thielen and Larry Constantine
in SD magazine.

http://www.sdmagazine.com/supplement/ppm/homepage.shtml

might be interesting

Ilja

In article <m37lqz0yoa.fsf@solo.david-steuber.com>,
David Steuber <trashcan@david-steuber.com> wrote:

> Meanwhile, languages like Ansi Common Lisp have had features that
> allow you to prototype and build a large system at the same time.
> That is, the specification of the system becomes the system.

A good principle for this would be 'Design by Contract'.

The ideal language for that IMHO would be Eiffel.
See http://www.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/language/intro/
for an introduction by the inventor of the language, Bertrand Meyer
see also
http://www.eiffel-forum.org/
and the links at http://www.elj.com/

> People
> have done the same thing with Visual Basic, so I am told.
>
Very bad idea, as already pointed out

>
So long !

Norbert
--
Norbert Klamann
Klamann Software & Beratung
Erftstadt Germany
Klamann.Software@pobox.com

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

"M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com> writes:

-> Not sure what your "cowboy" style looks like, but Python is just
-> great for designing well-organized OO apps with components using
-> pattern paradigms [...add all your favorite buzzwords here...].

Try to imagine object oriented spaghetti. This is what happens when
analysis, design, and coding all happen at the same time.

--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com

If you wish to reply by mail, _please_ replace 'trashcan' with 'david'
in the e-mail address. The trashcan account really is a trashcan.

So as your consumer electronics adviser, I am advising you to donate
your current VCR to a grate resident, who will laugh sardonically and
hurl it into a dumpster. Then I want you to go out and purchase a vast
array of 8-millimeter video equipment.

.. OK! Got everything? Well, *too bad, sucker*, because while you
were gone the electronics industry came up with an even newer format
that makes your 8-millimeter VCR look as technologically advanced as
toenail dirt. This format is called "3.5 hectare" and it will not be
made available until it is outmoded, sometime early next week, by a
format called "Elroy", so *order yours now*.
-- Dave Barry, "No Surrender in the Electronics
Revolution"

boud@rempt.xs4all.nl writes:

-> Then suddenly, the whole blasted !@#$%^&* was more than ten million
-> lines, more than hundred dll's, numerous OCX'es, and countless forms,
-> all built by twenty to thirty novices in the art of programming, of whom
-> fifteen had left the company. It's more than painful or embarrasing...
-> And it's not the first time I've seen that happen. Sorry for the rant -
-> I just had to get it of my chest. I don't think Python really insures
-> you against these mistakes.

I never heard it being _that_ bad. I am hoping that the modular
nature of Python allows me to throw away the stuff that turns out to
be crap and insert replacement code without a complete re-write.

This is assuming I actually get my but in gear and go ahead with the
project I have in mind. It is a project of the ambitious sort where
the word hubris is a hopelessly inadequate description of my state of
mind in even contemplating the thing.

--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com

If you wish to reply by mail, _please_ replace 'trashcan' with 'david'
in the e-mail address. The trashcan account really is a trashcan.

Review Questions

(1) If Nerd on the planet Nutley starts out in his spaceship at 20 KPH,
and his speed doubles every 3.2 seconds, how long will it be before
he exceeds the speed of light? How long will it be before the
Galactic Patrol picks up the pieces of his spaceship?

(2) If Roger Rowdy wrecks his car every week, and each week he breaks
twice as many bones as before, how long will it be before he breaks
every bone in his body? How long will it be before they cut off
his insurance? Where does he get a new car every week?

(3) If Johnson drinks one beer the first hour (slow start), four beers
the next hour, nine beers the next, etc., and stacks the cans in a
pyramid, how soon will Johnson's pyramid be larger than King
Tut's? When will it fall on him? Will he notice?

"Ilja Heitlager" <news@helen.demon.nl> writes:

-> To build larger systems you need classes and modules for abstraction and
-> reuse.

Python appears to have that.

-> To build proto's you need interactive programming and short code-debug
-> cycles.

Python also seems to have that. I would like better python support in
XEmacs. There is a python mode, but I haven't seen anything about
evaluating Python code ineteractivly the way you can with Lisp and
elisp.

-> Need GUI's? MFC or tcl/tk?

MFC???? <choke!> I hope to seperate the functionality from the GUI to
make both orthoganal to each other. If I can pull that off, I suppose
a Windows version would be possible for what I want to do. I am
expecting to go straight to XLib and OpenGL. If I need an abstraction
layer over X, it would probably be xt.

-> Networking, Parsers, XML, HTML, regex?

I am not sure if I need to use networking. I am hoping to get
concurrent development via outside tools like CVS.

-> ehh, Python?

It looks interesting. It is more C like than Lisp like. I was
considering using Lisp, but for various reasons I have abandoned that
idea. JavaScript is too weak. Perl is a strong scripting language,
but it is a real bitch to create C++ style classes. The syntax is a
nightmare. I'll keep it for text munching.

--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com

If you wish to reply by mail, _please_ replace 'trashcan' with 'david'
in the e-mail address. The trashcan account really is a trashcan.

Drew's Law of Highway Biology:
The first bug to hit a clean windshield lands directly in front
of your eyes.

David Steuber <trashcan@david-steuber.com> wrote:
:
: I never heard it being _that_ bad. I am hoping that the modular
: nature of Python allows me to throw away the stuff that turns out to
: be crap and insert replacement code without a complete re-write.
:

Mind you, I was talking about a VB-5 project (which also won't compile
under VB-6, but that's another issue...), but the general problem is
that after your first millionth line you won't be able to guess as to
what to throw away, even if you program in Python.

On the other hand, after an absence of two weeks I've spent today the
whole day in rebuilding my development environment to the point where
I could compile code again... That's a problem Python wouldn't have,
anyway. And I've never come across problems with corrupted type
libraries or the like in Python.

:
: This is assuming I actually get my but in gear and go ahead with the
: project I have in mind. It is a project of the ambitious sort where
: the word hubris is a hopelessly inadequate description of my state of
: mind in even contemplating the thing.
:

I don't know anything about Lisp, apart from having gone through
'The Little Lisper', and my adventures with Eiffel have been brief, so
I don't know about those, but my feeling is that if you want to start
a really big project you need two things: organization and robust
wrists...

Anyway, I have decided to use Python for my personal projects and whatever
it's qualities for multi-million line projects, I'm a happy, productive
and creative programmer, no longer plagued by pointer arithmetic and
the amount of code I have to type has decreased enormously. So I'd say
that whatever you plan, short of a new operating system, go with
Python.
--

Boudewijn Rempt | www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:31:19 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com>
wrote:
>Projects around 50k are still well manageable using an editor
>like Xemacs; larger projects probably need the help of systems
>like SNIFF (which offers Python support).

Are you talking about SNIFF+ from TakeFive Software? I browsed their
site and could only find mention of C++ and Java support. Any
pointers?

boud@rempt.xs4all.nl wrote:
>
> David Steuber <trashcan@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> : Meanwhile, languages like Ansi Common Lisp have had features that
> : allow you to prototype and build a large system at the same time.
> : That is, the specification of the system becomes the system. People
> : have done the same thing with Visual Basic, so I am told.
> :
>
> Yes, they do. I should know - I'm working on a whopping great
> big laboratory erp system built in Visual Basic. First there was
> the prototype and it looked like a Windows program. Then there wasn't
> enough time to start again and discard the prototype, so the prototype
> became the specification, and in time, the system. Then the project
> was delayed by about a year. Then there were performance problems
> caused by conceptual errors that had to be rectified by hacking around.
> Then suddenly, the whole blasted !@#$%^&* was more than ten million
> lines, more than hundred dll's, numerous OCX'es, and countless forms,
> all built by twenty to thirty novices in the art of programming, of whom
> fifteen had left the company. It's more than painful or embarrasing...
> And it's not the first time I've seen that happen. Sorry for the rant -
> I just had to get it of my chest. I don't think Python really insures
> you against these mistakes.

VB is notorious for insuring THAT a project makes those mistakes. :)
--
=========================================================
Tres Seaver tseaver@palladion.com 713-523-6582
Palladion Software http://www.palladion.com

David Steuber wrote in message ...
>Try to imagine object oriented spaghetti. This is what happens when
>analysis, design, and coding all happen at the same time.


I do not believe that all software can be build in an ADC or waterfallwise
manner,
but as it seems there is more a problem of lack of management and lack of
people.
Sounds like a university project ;-)


Ilja

>A good principle for this would be 'Design by Contract'.
>
>The ideal language for that IMHO would be Eiffel.
>See http://www.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/language/intro/
>for an introduction by the inventor of the language, Bertrand Meyer
>see also
>http://www.eiffel-forum.org/
>and the links at http://www.elj.com/


DbC is a good idea anyway, but don't just use Eiffel to use the principle.
Python has assertions and and there are some nice assertionpackages for Java
(using preprocessors
to insert/hide). In other words: assertions can be mimiced in (probably)
every language

Make your choice based on language constructs like modules or classes (for
modularity and abstraction ---> large systems), script or system language
(for fast code-debug cycles) and available packages. If speed is a problem
most languages offer a C-escape.

also check
http://www.python.org/workshops/1997-10/proceedings/cunningham.html
and guido's http://www.developer.com/journal/techfocus/081798_jpython.html
for the Two-language approach (HYPE!)

Anyway for large systems use something like OO language (Python and Java?),
UML (or something) and a good IDE (love to see a class browser for Python),
(re)use existing packages.

Ilja

David Steuber wrote:

>I would like better python support in
>XEmacs. There is a python mode, but I haven't seen anything about
>evaluating Python code ineteractivly the way you can with Lisp and
>elisp.
I use windows python, it has debuggers and such.

>-> Need GUI's? MFC or tcl/tk?
>
>MFC???? <choke!> I hope to seperate the functionality from the GUI to
>make both orthoganal to each other. If I can pull that off, I suppose
>a Windows version would be possible for what I want to do. I am
>expecting to go straight to XLib and OpenGL. If I need an abstraction
>layer over X, it would probably be xt.

OK, A UNIX guy (that will change ;-) Take a look at the modules section in
www.python.org
All gui's you mention are supported, there is also a WPY package. It is an
abstract representation and uses MFC on MS or tcl/tk otherwise.


>
>-> Networking, Parsers, XML, HTML, regex?

>I am not sure if I need to use networking. I am hoping to get
>concurrent development via outside tools like CVS.


If there's ASCII CVS is never a problem ofcourse, but I just named a few
packages.

>

>-> ehh, Python?
>
>It looks interesting. It is more C like than Lisp like. I was
>considering using Lisp, but for various reasons I have abandoned that
>idea. JavaScript is too weak. Perl is a strong scripting language,
>but it is a real bitch to create C++ style classes. The syntax is a
>nightmare. I'll keep it for text munching.


Python has very strong regex support, so you will probably start using
python for that as well ;-)
There is a thread at this moment however discussing performance on LARGE
text-processing in Perl and Python. I never was much of a parenthesis
fetisjist, so LISP is out of my league. If you need functional constructs,
python has that as well (lambda's etc)
If you need symbolical stuff, I am working on that. I have experience with
Prolog and Reduce/RLISP (Lisp without () and a month ago I took Python to
do symbolical stuff.
It gave me just what I wanted: OO and strong operator overloading. much
better then simple Lisp-tuples. Tell me if you need this kind of stuff.

The last year I did a lot of large system stuff in Java (both pure and MS),
which was a great relief from C. Last month I got to learn Python, which I
love even better. Until now there isn't anything I can think of what I could
not do in Python and JPyhton is probably the HOLY GRAIL.
Guido is king, Python is his round table and we are the knights that follow.

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:54:58 +0200, Ilja Heitlager <news@helen.demon.nl> wrote:

>OK, A UNIX guy (that will change ;-)

Yes, soon you will *all* be Linux guys. Resistance is futile. You will be
assimilated.

Now to add something to the discussion, you might want to check out Extreme
programming:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ExtremeProgrammingRoadmap

It seems to be popular with SmallTalk people.

Dave Cook

David M. Cook wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:54:58 +0200, Ilja Heitlager <news@helen.demon.nl>
wrote:
>
>>OK, A UNIX guy (that will change ;-)
>
>Yes, soon you will *all* be Linux guys.


I would love too, but Windows doesn't leave any space on my HD ;-(

> Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Borgs don't mix with snakes.

Ilja

> From python-list-request@cwi.nl Thu Apr 29 11:40:56 1999
> From: davecook@home.com (David M. Cook)
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
> Subject: Re: Designing Large Systems with Python
> X-Organization: http://members.home.com/davecook
> Reply-To: davecook@home.com
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:13:48 GMT
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
> X-Trace: news.rdc1.sdca.home.com 925380828 24.0.189.179 (Thu, 29 Apr 1999
> 03:13:48 PDT)
> To: python-list@cwi.nl
>
> Now to add something to the discussion, you might want to check out Extreme
> programming:
>
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ExtremeProgrammingRoadmap
>
> It seems to be popular with SmallTalk people.
>

At the recent OT99 at Oxford University, Kent Beck gave a keynote speech
about XP as a paradigm. They happen to be using Java on their projects,
language is not an issue.

David

________________________________________________________________________________

************************************************
* David Dench *
* The University of Huddersfield , UK *
* Tel: 01484 472083 *
* email: d.j.dench@hud.ac.uk *
************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________

> I would like better python support in XEmacs. There is a python mode,
> but I haven't seen anything about evaluating Python code ineteractivly
> the way you can with Lisp and elisp.

Is this the sort of thing you want?

Try C-c ! to create a python shell, C-c C-c to evaluate a buffer in that
shell, or C-c | to evaluate a marked region. Then you can execute
commands interactively in that shell.

This works for python-mode in emacs. I would guess it would be the same
in xemacs. Unless these are customizations I did and forgot about... :)

Alex.

David Steuber <trashcan@david-steuber.com> writes:

> I would like better python support in XEmacs. There is a python
> mode, but I haven't seen anything about evaluating Python code
> ineteractivly the way you can with Lisp and elisp.

The support for Python in XEmacs will obviously never be as good as
the support for emacs lisp. However, it is already about as good as
it is for other lispy things like clisp, scheme, etc.

One can run a python interpreter in an emacs window. This can be
interacted with directly, or you can send code to it from a
python-mode buffer. It has served my needs fairly well.

> -> ehh, Python?
>
> It looks interesting. It is more C like than Lisp like.

Well, in the obvious syntactical sense, sure.

I am comfortable in several dialects of Lisp, but find C to be No Fun.
I am rapidly becoming at home with Python. In many of the
less-immediately-obvious but very important ways, I find that Python
doesn't feel much like C at all.

-Justin

bkhunter@best.com (Bill) writes:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:31:19 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com>
> wrote:
> >Projects around 50k are still well manageable using an editor
> >like Xemacs; larger projects probably need the help of systems
> >like SNIFF (which offers Python support).
>
> Are you talking about SNIFF+ from TakeFive Software? I browsed their
> site and could only find mention of C++ and Java support. Any
> pointers?


It's at:


http://starship.python.net/crew/scharf/sn4py/


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Austin (phil@geog.ubc.ca)
Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663
University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150