When I started programming in Python long ago, one of the features which really hooked me up was the quality interactive interpreter offered with the language implementation. It was (and still is) a fantastic way to experiment with syntax, semantics, modules, and whatnot. So much so that many first-class Python practitioners will happily tell you that the interactive interpreter is used not only as a programming sandbox, but many times as the their personal calculator too. This kind of interactive interpreter is also known as a REPL, standing for Read Eval Print Loop, and many languages have pretty advanced choices in that area by now.

After much rejoice with Python’s REPL, though, and as a normal human being, I’ve started wishing for more. The problem has a few different levels, which are easy to understand.

First, we’re using Python Twisted in Ensemble, one of the projects being pushed at Canonical. Twisted is an event-driven framework, which among other things means it works a lot with closures and callbacks. Having to redefine multi-line functions frequently to drive experiments isn’t exactly fun in a line-based interactive interpreter. Then, some of the languages I’ve started playing with, such as Erlang, have limited REPLs which differ in functionality significantly compared to what may be done in a text file. And finally, other languages I’ve been programming with recently, such as Go, lack a reasonable REPL altogether (there are only unusable hacks around).

Alright, so here is the idea: what if instead of being given an interactive REPL, you were presented with your favorite text editor, and whenever you wrote the file down, it was executed and results presented? That’s The Hacking Sandbox, or hsandbox. It supports 11 different programming languages out of the box, and given its nature it should be trivial to support any other language.

Here is a screenshot to clarify the idea:

Note that if you open a sandbox for a language like C or Go, the skeleton of what’s needed to run a program will already be in place, so you just have to “fill the blanks”.

For more details and download information, please check the hsandbox web page.

I’ve just read a post by Brett Cannon where, basically, he complains about complainers.

If you don’t know who Brett is, you’re probably not a heavy Python user. Brett is a very important Python core developer which has been around for a while and who does a great job at it. His post, though, makes me a bit sad.

Brett points out that there are two types of personalities which do not contribute to open source. The first one he defines as:

The first type is the “complainer”. This is someone who finds something they don’t like, points out that the thing they don’t like is suboptimal, but then offers no solutions.

And the second one is defined as:

(…) This is someone who, upon finding out about a decision that they think was sub-optimal, decides to bring up new ideas and solutions. The person is obviously trying to be helpful by bringing up new ideas and solutions, thinking that the current one is simply going to flop and they need to stop people from making a big mistake. The thing is, this person is not helping. (…)

This, on itself, is already shortsighted. If you’re tired of hearing the same arguments again and again for 10 years, from completely different people, there’s a pretty good chance that there’s an actual issue with your project, and your users are trying in their way to contribute and interact with you in the hope that it might get fixed.

This is really important: They are people, which use your project, and are trying to improve it. If you can’t stand that, you should stop maintaining an open source project now, or pick something which no one cares about.

The other issue which took my attention in his post is his example: the Python GIL. Look at the way in which Brett dismisses the problem:

(I am ignoring the fact that few people write CPU-intensive code requiring true threading support, that there is the multiprocessing library, true power users have extension modules which do operate with full threading, and that there are multiple VMs out there with a solution that have other concurrency solutions)

Brett, we can understand that the GIL is hard to remove, but it’s a fundamental flaw in the most important Python implementation, and being dismissive about it will either draw further complaints at you, or will simply drive users away from the language entirely.

I can understand why you think this way, though. Guido presents the same kind of feeling about the GIL for a very long time. Here is one excerpt from a mail thread about it:

Nevertheless, you’re right the GIL is not as bad as you would initially think: you just have to undo the brainwashing you got from Windows and Java proponents who seem to consider threads as the only way to approach concurrent activities.

Just Say No to the combined evils of locking, deadlocks, lock granularity, livelocks, nondeterminism and race conditions.

I apologize, but I have a very hard time reading this and not complaining.

In my world, the golden days of geometric growth in vertical processing power is over, multi-processed machines are here to stay, and the amount of traffic flowing through networks is just increasing. It feels reasonable to desire a less naïve approach to deal with real world problems, such as executing tasks concurrently.

I actually would love to not worry about things like non-determinism and race conditions, and would love even more to have a programming language which helps me with that!

Python, though, has a Global Interpreter Lock (yes, I’m talking about CPython, the most important interpreter). Python programs execute in sequence. No Fork/Join frameworks, no coroutines, no lightweight processes, nothing. Your Python code will execute in sequence if it lives in the same process space.

The answer from Brett and Guido to concurrency? Develop your code in C, or write your code to execute in multiple processes. If they really want people to get rid of non-determinism, locking issues, race conditions, and so on, they’re not helping at all.

I know this is just yet another complaint, though. I honestly cannot fix the problem either, and rather just talk about it in the hope that someone who’s able to do it will take care of it. That said, I wish that the language maintainers would do the same, and tell the world that it’s an unfortunate problem, and that they wished someone else would go there and fix it! If, instead, maintainers behave in a ridiculously dismissive way, like Guido did in that mail thread, and like Brett is doing in his post, the smart people that could solve the problem get turned down. People like to engage with motivated maintainers.. they like to solve problems that others are interested in seeing solved.

Perhaps agreeing with the shortcomings won’t help, though, and no one will show up to fix the problem either. But then, at least users will know that the maintainers are on the same side of the fence, and the hope that it will get fixed survives. If the maintainers just complain about the users which complain, and dismiss the problem, users are put in an awkward position. I can’t complain.. I can’t provide ideas or solutions.. I can’t fix the problem.. they don’t even care about the problem. Why am I using this thing at all?

Would you rather have users, or have no complainers?

The patch submitted last weekend to support Launchpad and Bazaar in goinstall went in!

This means that once the next release of Go is out (or you sync up with the tip code) you’ll be able to host modules for Go in Launchpad and people will be able to install it by running something similar to:

goinstall launchpad.net/yourproject

Then, you can simply use that in your source code as:

import “launchpad.net/yourproject”

The following URLs are supported:

import “launchpad.net/project”
import “launchpad.net/project/series”
import “launchpad.net/project/series/sub/directory”

import “launchpad.net/~user/project/branch”
import “launchpad.net/~user/project/branch/sub/directory”

import “launchpad.net/~user/+junk/branch”
import “launchpad.net/~user/+junk/branch/sub/directory”

Where you see sub/directory above, it means the module to be compiled, installed, and used, may be inside a subdirectory in the Bazaar branch itself. This is a convention used in all supported backends of goinstall.

I was just rambling randomly yesterday, in the usual microblogging platforms, about how result checking seems to be ignored or done badly. The precise wording was:

It’s really amazing how little attention error handling receives in most software development. Even *tutorials* often ignore it.

It indeed does amaze me. It sometimes feels like we write code for theoretical perfect worlds.. “If the processor executes exactly in this order, and the weather is calm, this program will work.”. There are countless examples of bad assumptions.. someday I will come with some statistics of the form “Every N seconds someone forgets to check the result of write().”.

If you are a teacher, or a developer that enjoys writing snippets of code to teach people, please join me in the quest of building a better future. Do not tell us that you’re “avoiding result checking for terseness”, because that’s exactly what we people will do (terseness is good, right?). On the contrary, take this chance to make us feel bad about avoiding result checking. You might do this by putting a comment like “If you don’t do this, you’re a bad programmer.” right next to the logic which is handling the result, and might take this chance to teach people how proper result handling is done.

Of course, there’s another forgotten art related to result checking. It sits on the other side of the fence. If you are a library author, do think through about how you plan to make us check conditions which happen inside your library, and try to imagine how to make our lives easier. If we suck at handling results when there are obvious ways to handle it, you can imagine what happens when you structure your result logic badly.

Here is a clear example of what not to do, coming straight from Python’s standard library, in the imaplib module:

    def login(self, user, password):
        typ, dat = self._simple_command('LOGIN', user, self._quote(password))
        if typ != 'OK':
            raise self.error(dat[-1])
        self.state = 'AUTH'
        return typ, dat

You see the problem there? How do you handle errors from this library? Should we catch the exception, or should we verify the result code? “Both!” is the right answer, unfortunately, because the author decided to do us a little favor and check the error condition himself in some arbitrary cases and raise the error, while letting it go through and end up in the result code in a selection of other arbitrary cases.

I may provide some additional advice on result handling in the future, but for now I’ll conclude with the following suggestion: please check the results from your actions, and help others to check theirs. That’s a good life-encompassing recommendation, actually.