Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> writes: > I hoping a new trend will start with dev's putting direct > source code links in their documentation: > > http://rhettinger.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/open-your-source-more/
That's a good article overall. I have a quibble with the framing: > The rest of the blame lies with installers. They all treat > human-readable scripts like they were binaries and tuck the code away > in a dark corner. That’s hardly a “blame” of installers. The modules are placed in such locations because they need to be accessible in a hierarchy at a location that is known to not conflict with anything else, and be predictable for the Python interpreter on the system. If you want to blame anything for this (though I think it’s inaccurate to frame it as a problem), the correct target of your accusation is the fact that a filesystem path is the identifier for these modules that will be used by programs to find them. As for reading the source and making it more available to programmers, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Encouraging the routine reading of other projects’s source code is a good thing, and thank you for beating the drum. -- \ “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them | `\ to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their | _o__) own desires.” —Susan Brownell Anthony, 1896 | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
