Modules & positive surprises

[kyosohma at gmail.com]

On Mar 27, 8:30 am, Jan Danielsson <jan.m.daniels... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> <IMHO>
>
>    Although I have encountered many modules that have impressed me with
> regards to what they can actually do -- too be perfectly honest, it's
> very rare that I become impressed by the _interfaces_ to the modules.
>
>    Using a new module is normally, with my - admittedly - limited
> experience, a pain. It's not just about reading the reference material,
> and then just use it. You have to figure out how the developer who wrote
> the module was thinking. Often there's a (more or less) natural way to
> do things, and unfortunately that's not how module developers do it.
> It's not a major issue to me personally, since the important part is
> that the module can perform its function.
>
>    But then there are a few modules that I just love to use, because
> they are so "clean" from interface to function. Among them I can't help
> mentioning optparse.
>
>    Yesterday I found another module which I fell in love with: Python
> Cryptography Toolkit (http://www.amk.ca/python/writing/pycrypt/).
>
>    It's just so ... elegant, and functional.
>
> </IMHO>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Jan Danielsson

Yeah. I've noticed that myself. There are tons of good modules, but a
lot of the docs are lousy. What's really annoying is that everyone
says that so-and-so is well documented. I love Python, but I wish when
they said some module was well documented, they meant that the docs
were understandable (to n00bs) as well.

Mike