We need PIGs :)

[programmer.py at gmail.com]

On Aug 30, 12:10 am, "Martin Marcher" <martin.marc... at gmail.com>
wrote:

[snip!]
>
> My idea was to define "Python Implementation Guidelines" (PIGs) that
> specify a problem formalize it enough so that implementations are
> interchangeable (in this example create a module that has an
> "authenticate(username, password)" method so that one could easily
> take that module for any given app and then authenticate against
> postgres, and also against my plaintext file (which was the original -
> quite useless - implementation).
>
> Does that sound like a good idea or would that be over formalization?
>

This may be over-formalization.  For specific problems, there
generally is a pythonic choice.  For instance, suppose your problem is
'I need an ORM' - well the pythonic choice is something along the
lines of SQLObject or SQLAlchemy.

Then there are other cases where there are too many choices - "I need
a web framework." -- turbogears, django, pylons, and whatever else you
want to throw into the pot.  (Be smart, choose pylons [just kidding,
but I did promote pylons and attach a just kidding disclaimer --
clever, huh?])

> Personally I think that would be great as I could search the PIGs at
> (hopefully) python.org find out the number and search at koders.com or
> code.google.com for python code that has "PIG: XXX" in the metadata
> docstring or wherever - maybe even a __pig__ = XXX variable.
>

I think most of what you're after may be in the python cookbook
(http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python) or the PyPi (http://
pypi.python.org/pypi).
> any input is welcome (also point me to the place where that can be
> found if it already exists)
> martin

Or maybe I completely misunderstand what you mean.

G' Day!
jw