Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Launches Python Developer Center
SimonW writes "Yahoo! has launched a Python Developer Center as part of their Developer Network. The new site explains how to access Yahoo!'s many web service APIs using Python, and includes tutorials on using Python with REST, JSON, XML and RSS. The site joins Yahoo!'s existing developer centers for PHP and JavaScript."
Python developer, I think this is great. I'm glad that Python is gaining more acceptance.
If the quality is on par with their Javascript library, we're in for a real treat
It's pretty cool of Yahoo to provide so much to the dev community. It's definitely improved my feelings about the company.
I wonder why they've made this foray into the Python world? I know they decided to focus on PHP a few years back. Did they find some tasks were easier to accomplish in Python? Or are they simply trying to reach out to another developer community?
Every time I see a story about Yahoo concerning developers, it's exactly what I want to hear. While their competitors are saying "do no evil", Yahoo seems to be living it.
I don't know if I'm quite there yet, but my hard-to-break habit of Googling everything might be worth breaking if this kind of developer-focused attitude from Yahoo continues like it has. It's at least very tempting.
Wake me when they create a Ruby/Rails section.
Guido! Let my whitespace go!
Furthermore, unlike their previous offerings, they have released little new code here. The only code they have released is an API to their search engine. The rest seem to be HOWTOs on how to python to access their services.
Still good info though. Thanks
While browsing through this, I noticed the following in ther Weather RSS feed page:
The feeds are provided free of charge for use by individuals and non-profit organizations for personal, non-commercial uses.
and then
Yahoo! also reserves the right to require you to cease distributing these feeds at any time for any reason.
So, while it's cool and all, is there any value to using their weather RSS feed (and I assume it's similar with other services), beyond my ability to play with them? I mean, even I'm not making any money off it, presumably, if I put the effort in accessing those feeds, I expect them to be available to me in the future? Or do they provide a paid-for version for this?
My only problem with Microsoft is the severity of bugs in their software.
You're in luck! Here's a quote from Guido: "Maybe my spiritual beliefs shine through here -- I'm a convinced atheist."
I don't know anything about Ruby's creator, but Larry Wall has always creeped me out too. I sure was happy when Python came along - a sensible language created by a logical Dutchman.
Did you honestly just compare giving up the name of a journalist to the attempted genocide of Jewish people? You are one brave... Oh, you posted AC. I take that back.
No, providing a few dev tools does not make past mistakes 'better'. But it does show they can actually care.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
The whole point of a web service is that it is language-neutral. There is nothing preventing you from using Ruby or any other language that can take advantage of web services. Just look at the WSDL and make use of it.
The great and mighty Anonymous wrote:
Launch...?
Python....?
Snakes on a Plane!!!
Yep, it's another Product Placement deal. Pretty shameless -- all the searches shown in the movie start at yahoo.com, and yahoo.com plugs the movie right down to the programmer level. Pitiful.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I know everybody gets hung up on the whitespace thing when they look at Python. But you know what? Once you start actually coding in it for any significant amount of time, it's not a big deal. When you first start, I know you expect it to be really annoying, but that simply doesn't turn out to be the case. The supposed problem evaporates.
Every time you hear anybody moan about Python's significant whitespace, ask them how long they've spent actually writing Python. You'll see the same thing as I do - that virtually everybody complaining has never given Python a chance, and that virtually everybody who has given Python a chance has realised that the significant whitespace isn't a big deal.
The web already has a Lisp dialect. It's called XML.
Badass Resumes
Not only did they release a nice guide, but the guide is actually good: while the first XML library they talk about in XML parsing is xml.dom.minidom, they also explain how to use the XML API with effbot's ElementTree (and link to both ElementTree and cElementTree), which is more than likely the best Python XML library. And the recommend UFP (Universal Feed Parser) for RSS parsing.
The worst thing you can say about them is that they did their homework, kudos to the Yahoo guys.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
If you want people to switch to Scheme, explain why they should and how it would benefit them, don't just say "lol ur language is teh sux, use mine". That's exactly the kind of stupid shit that gives Lisp users a reputation as a bunch of arrogant assholes.
And yes, Scheme is a great language, and I love it, but it's not the best thing for every situation. If you truly think one language is the best choice for everything, then you're a total idiot.
Also, no even slightly popular browser supports client side scripting with Scheme, and most web hosts don't offer server-side scripting with it either.
And how exactly is this contradictory? I can be a Lisp user without being a stuck up ass who thinks that *their* language is the only one that anyone should ever use for anything.
Python is so 2004. Everyone knows that Ruby is the current language du jour. Yahoo needs to catch up.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Uhh.. Not to nit-pick... ok, yes, to nit-pick (sorry!), I think Yahoo's competitors are saying "Don't be evil" not "Do no evil".
You're not the only one making this mistake.
Bleep
You are narrowing your options considering who who developed the initial versions of GCC.
an ill wind that blows no good
I'm just glad they did this ahead of any Ruby foray. Online, all I hear anymore is loud rowdy Ruby peope and anti-Python people, some of whom are the same. At the bookstore, I easily see two times more Python books than Ruby. This tells me that despite the online hype, there's still a lot of quiet interest in Python and it isn't that Ruby or anything else is pushing us aside, it's that we're not very vociferous.
Which is fine with me. As long as Yahoo and other outlets keep that in mind that is. Python is not dead no matter what some people want to believe from the SNR.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Its sort of ironic that Guido van Rossum, the creator of Python, now works at Yahoo's competitor (Google).
Bah, Smalltalk is better than all of those.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
I can't say I have specialized in it, but I have used it. If you are going to program with side effects (OO) it doesn't get any simpler. I could live with it. How can anyone explain the madness of Python's fashionability over smalltalk?
an ill wind that blows no good
Where precisely did I say I think everyone should think like me? I think you have some anger issues to work out. A reading comprehension class might help too, as would a sense of humour.
This page mainly demonstrates how to take advantage of Yahoo's APIs with Python. I think that the engineers and managers at Yahoo must be paying attention to the competative edge in productivity that Python can offer. It really is an all purpose programming tool that works well in many niches.
The language is simpler than the others yet for more expressive and powerful. Learn something. Use it!
Oh is it?
Scheme with or without macros?
Scheme without macros is a laughably weak language compared to Python.
Scheme with macros can not be said to be simpler than Python.
More expressive? Show me any good expressive Scheme program that can not be expressed with round-the-same-length Python program, that is also easier on the eyes?
Many of us Pythoneers have been there. Exactly where you are, bitching about the "whitespace".
.. but .. its just wrong!"
:-)
Only after using it for a little while we understood that we can never go back.
The way I resisted whitespace in the beginning now seems so stupid..
There really is no real claim against significant whitespace except the knee-jerk reaction of ".. but
If you actually try to use Python, you'll never want to go back to cluttering your visual space with unnecessary noise {}.
There's always the obvious option of using #{ and #} around your indented blocks
supposedly Matz is a real rarity, a Japanese mormon. Not that surprising, since Japan is all about weird fusions
Some do. I use yasos which is part of slib. You must be a C++ person who doesn't like macros because one of the priests of strong typing told you not to. A pity. Macros are an irreplacable feature being forgotten now in dumbed down languages. Read Paul Graham's On Lisp someday and get clued in.
???
Scheme supports Lists, vectors, and alists and iteration natively. Libstdc++ has spent the last 10 years trying to catch up, and doing so poorly. Python doesn't even have these. You don't know what you are talking about.
What slackjawed Python programmer doesn't spend every waking hour "wrapping" existing C API's. My Gentoo system is rotten with them. It saddens me that there is not a full scheme system yet. In the meantime scheme shell is pleasant way to interact with a GNU/Linux system.
an ill wind that blows no good
I don't know, maybe the fact that for Perl 6 he released a bunch of Apocalypses. Apparently these are "revelations" and not "the end of the world." I suppose Larry Wall is God. Or His Prophet.
On the other hand, perhaps Larry IS God . . .
No, XML is fine. DSSSL is a crime against humanity.
Hurting the eyes is an infinitely practical metric. The parentheses in Scheme make it truly painful to read and write, at least for me. Python is very easy to read and write. I use both Scheme and Python, and while I have never had trouble with Python indentation I always mess up the parentheses in Scheme, and I continually have to start counting to figure out where things begin and end. If you want a good functional language that's easy on the eyes, use Haskell.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
What does religion have to do with programming languages? As a _true_ atheist you should care about this particular point.
I'm an atheist too, and the point is to keep our minds open and willing to accept and change our thoughts.
You cannot ignore other people just because of their religion, that is not what an atheist stands for, we are against those lines of thinking.
Would you not take your medication if you found it it was invented by a religious person?
So God writes in Forth, not Lisp, as many supposed.
No no, what I meant was: Show me a Scheme program that takes less code than Python OR that the Python code is not more readable. That's EASIER to show than showing BOTH of the conditions.
Can you do it? Saying "Scheme is more expressive" requires some backing up.
And there was still no reply about Scheme with or without macros.
In a large program, though, I do tend to use comments to identify the end of blocks.
To me, this implies that in a large program, you have very large blocks.
Why don't you just divide them up into very small functions so that each function is trivial and very easy to verify for correctness, and incidentally very easy to follow the indentation of?
My tendency is to use functions for code that will be repeated at some point.
I strongly disagree with this method. I agree with the whole functions' section in the Linux kernel coding style.
I think that you should divide functions such that each function is trivial and more importantly trivially verifiable. With good naming conventions and division of responsibilities, you don't need to "jump between functions" as you only read the functions for implementation details. The interface and what they do should be fairly obvious.
A large function will most likely host bugs, while a tiny function that does exactly one thing (no more, and no less) will most likely be bug-free.
Division into functions is not a simple matter though, there are many criterions for the division of functions (wrappers, chronological, implementation hiding, indirection, code repeatability, etc).
I still maintain that you can't have too many comments. I would recommend commenting the end of any block, including a function block, that might often have the top of the block not on the same screen, just to make quick navigation easier.
I disagree here too. The best documentation is self-documenting code, and bad documentation is worse than no documentation.
The problem with redundant comments (such as "if X: end block" and such) is not just the time they take to write and the visual noise they add, but most importantly, it is that these comments are almost never up-to-date. Nobody bothers to update such redundant comments, and they become bad documentation.
If you can replace a comment with a descriptive variable assignment, e.g instead of:
# We blit the image into the center position:
image.blit((WIDTH/2, HEIGHT/2))
Use:
center_position = (WIDTH/2, HEIGHT/2)
image.blit(center_position)
The variable assignment will remain correct and kept up-to-date. The comment is likely to grow out of sync with the code, and even if it doesn't - the reader is not sure whether to trust the comments. Remember that the code is the most accurate documentation.
Atheism IS a religion.
A religion is a belief system.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano