«

I'm one of those that tries to get an outline of the project and then
puts in code as things become clear. Once the basics are working
reasonably I go back and organize the thing for maintainability. Then
finish flushing it out. It is the one stage I dread the most.

Why not organize it up front? Because I don't always have the whole pie
at the outset.

In changing to Python I had a bigger learning curve than I realized at
the start. When I finally got my "pieces" accomplishing what I wanted
it became time to start looking at its structure.

I did the cut and paste into a followable form and ran the basic to
check for the usual errors, omissions and outright flaws. This was a
major reorganization.

IT RAN FLAWLESSLY THE FIRST TRY! UNBELIEVABLE! (at least for me)

To all those that did the original and the fixes and the tweaks to get
Python to this level (2.5.2) I must say WELL DONE!
I offer a sincere THANK YOU!!!

OH - I will still mumble, grumble and have fits when it doesn't do what
I want the way I want - BUT it will be with a backdrop of great respect.

As for the very active Python community support - I thank you too.


Steve

In article <>,
Nick Craig-Wood <> wrote:
>
>Python also converted me to using unit tests. If you add unit tests
>into your methodology above then when you re-organize (or refactor to
>use the modern jargon) the code you can be 100% sure that you didn't
>break anything which is a wonderful feeling.

Not quite: you can be 100% sure you didn't break anything you had
appropriate tests for. If you use pure TDD (test-driven development),
you can be pretty close to 100% comfortable, but my impression is that
few people do pure TDD.
--
Aahz () <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait
until you hire an amateur." --Red Adair

On Apr 21, 3:52*pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <slrnguqvne.eol.n...@irishsea.home.craig-wood.com>,
> Nick Craig-Wood *<n...@craig-wood.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Python also converted me to using unit tests. *If you add unit tests
> >into your methodology above then when you re-organize (or refactor to
> >use the modern jargon) the code you can be 100% sure that you didn't
> >break anything which is a wonderful feeling.
>
> Not quite: you can be 100% sure you didn't break anything you had
> appropriate tests for. *If you use pure TDD (test-driven development),
> you can be pretty close to 100% comfortable, but my impression is that
> few people do pure TDD.

Few is obviously a relative term. Amongst some of the circles I move
in it is genuinely most - but a lot of them are using C#. The Python
community, whilst having a strong testing culture, seems to be a bit
behind the times with TDD.

*Personally* it has changed the way I develop dramatically; and
despite the name is much more about the way you approach design than
purely for the sake of tests.

But there you go.

Michael Foord
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/

> --
> Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * * * * * <*> * * * *http://www.pythoncraft.com/
>
> "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait
> until you hire an amateur." *--Red Adair