Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > <imho> > Which is not a problem. reload() is of very limited use for any > non-trivial stuff. > </imho>
Now that I've heard this from 5 different people it might be sinking in. :) :) I really do appreciate all of you taking the time to explain this to me. When I started using Python a few years ago I was very excited about the fact that it was an interpreted language and offered a more interactive workflow than the old compile-link-test workflow. As my project has grown to be pretty sizeable by Python standards, I tried to continue taking advantage of the tight, reload-based, interpreted- language workflow and it's become really cumbersome, which is disappointing. However y'all are right, giving up on reload() doesn't mean Python is inadequate for large projects, just that it doesn't live up entirely to what I perceived as its initial promise. Once I adjust my mindset and workflow for a life without reload(), I'll probably be better off. I'd like to point out something though. More than one of the people who responded have implied that I am bringing my prior-language mindset to Python, even suggesting that my brain isn't built for Python. ;) In fact I think it's the other way around. I am struggling to take full advantage of the fact that Python is an interpreted language, to use Python in the most "Pythonic" way. You guys are telling me that's broken and I should go back to a workflow that is identical in spirit, and not necessarily any faster than I would use with a compiled language. While that might be the right answer in practice, I don't feel like it's a particularly "good" answer, and it confirms my initial impression that Python package management is broken. I think you should be asking yourselves, "Did we all abandon reload() because it is actually an inferior workflow, or just because it's totally broken in Python?" I have one question left but I'll ask that in a separate post. Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
