3 ms·

Thumbs up for 'Click'. I used it for a project once, and I was really happy with it. Easy to use, good docs. Would use it again.

• pletnes 6y ago
  It’s fantastic and should be used by most CLI programs. Argparse is much faster and avoids having a dependency, so it does serve a purpose.
• gavinray 6y ago
  Googling the library appears to be about ~8,000 lines of code (core.py is ~2,000 alone). Is that really reasonable sounding to most people for parsing CLI input/output and display manpages or helptext?
  • dastx 6y ago
    I suppose it depends on the use case. Personally I've always thought argparse is good enough, and have never hit a roadblock "because I'm using argparse" so to say. Having said that, I do like the pattern click is going for. If it argparse allowed the same pattern, in my opinion that would be cool, and it would probably be my first choice.
    • blondin 6y ago
      argparse should not be the first thing to reach for, imo, when good old sys.argv can do the job.
      • mey 6y ago
        At that point I wouldn't leave bash. I feel like argparse allows for better documentation, error handling and input validation.
  • meddlepal 6y ago
    I'm not trying to be antagonistic here... but who cares how many lines it has unless you plan to maintain it?
  • 40four 6y ago
    I didn’t mean to suggest we should reach for Click for simple help/manpage display. The case I used it for was much more complex. What I liked about it was the easy to use API, clear documentation & examples, and readable patterns. For simple text display, I like the solution from the article, and I learned something new about bash scripts. Also, I learned from comments you can use heredoc in bash!