4 ms·

class Foo(object): def run(self, context): ... Objects with only a single method to run it are already built into Python, they are the functions. def

by remram 2y ago

class Foo(object): def run(self, context): ... Objects with only a single method to run it are already built into Python, they are the functions. def foo(context): ...

porridgeraisin 2y ago
But how can one survive without a daily dose of Utterly Brain Damaged Abstractions?
itherseed 2y ago
The advantage of the original approach is that later, when you need it, you can just add more methods to a class that are private to them. In your approach, if you need a new function, you add it at the global level, which can totally be fine for one or two functions, but with any more you end up with a bunch of functions all at the same level that is no longer obvious the dependency between them.
- heisenzombie 2y ago
  If you want a function that's private to a function in Python you _could_ also do: def foo(context): def bar(x): return x*2 baz = bar(context) ... This is particularly idiomatic for higher order functions, but I think it can be useful for other things if used with restraint. But if you have functions that only need to be called from one calling function then I why not just inline the code and eschew having a function at all. Long function bodies for the win!
  - notfish 2y ago
    Don’t do this, it makes it a huge pain to test bar(). When you write the initial code to figure out bar, just throw that code in a unit test so you can run it any time. Stop throwing tests away!
    - heisenzombie 2y ago
      Yes, perhaps I wasn’t clear — I’m advocating for just the inlined version, not the nested function in the general case. The nested function is, I think, fine when it’s so tiny it’s not worth unit testing (like, it-could-have-been-a-lambda small) or when bar is returned by foo (ie foo is higher order), in which case you can test the return value. Apart from that… restraint!
- remram 2y ago
  You can do that with a function too, make it a class with a __call__. If you need it, which you won't for this kind a script.
muixoozie 2y ago
Lol Reminds me of Brain Will's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM he has a series basically ranting about this. One of them he goes into examples simplifying needlessly abstract code.

by remram 2y ago

class Foo(object): def run(self, context): ... Objects with only a single method to run it are already built into Python, they are the functions. def foo(context): ...

porridgeraisin 2y ago

But how can one survive without a daily dose of Utterly Brain Damaged Abstractions?

itherseed 2y ago

The advantage of the original approach is that later, when you need it, you can just add more methods to a class that are private to them. In your approach, if you need a new function, you add it at the global level, which can totally be fine for one or two functions, but with any more you end up with a bunch of functions all at the same level that is no longer obvious the dependency between them.

heisenzombie 2y ago
If you want a function that's private to a function in Python you _could_ also do: def foo(context): def bar(x): return x*2 baz = bar(context) ... This is particularly idiomatic for higher order functions, but I think it can be useful for other things if used with restraint. But if you have functions that only need to be called from one calling function then I why not just inline the code and eschew having a function at all. Long function bodies for the win!
- notfish 2y ago
  Don’t do this, it makes it a huge pain to test bar(). When you write the initial code to figure out bar, just throw that code in a unit test so you can run it any time. Stop throwing tests away!
  - heisenzombie 2y ago
    Yes, perhaps I wasn’t clear — I’m advocating for just the inlined version, not the nested function in the general case. The nested function is, I think, fine when it’s so tiny it’s not worth unit testing (like, it-could-have-been-a-lambda small) or when bar is returned by foo (ie foo is higher order), in which case you can test the return value. Apart from that… restraint!
remram 2y ago
You can do that with a function too, make it a class with a __call__. If you need it, which you won't for this kind a script.

muixoozie 2y ago

Lol Reminds me of Brain Will's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM he has a series basically ranting about this. One of them he goes into examples simplifying needlessly abstract code.