I use the Python shell daily, plus of course normal editors to edit python scripts. They both are very useful for different purposes. But the default interactive shell isn't much handy if you want to modify the past code to run it again, or you want to embed a bit of text in the code, or if you want to produce something a bit more clean that you can save, or just if you want to edit and debug 7-lines long programs.
I have tried IPython, but I have never appreciated it too much, maybe because it requires me to remember too many things (and because on Win it's probably a little less handy). Probably I need something closer to an editor and less close to a shell.
In past I have also used the interactive editor of Mathematica (older versions, but I think its basic usage isn't changed much later), but despite being quite handy if you want to mix plotting and the editing of small formulas, I can't appreciate it to write programs more than 3 lines long. It's not a good or handy editor, and it has some other disadvantages
So I have always tried to think for possible alternative solutions for an interactive way to use Python. I am not looking for something to replace the nornal editors used to write long Python programs.
Despite being very limited and being not integrated with everything else, it's so handy that for me in certain situations it's the right tool to use when I have to process numbers and data in simple ways. It helps me keep all the intermediate solutions, you can save the working page just as the text file you are seeing, it's "passive", it doesn't go bang, so if you want you can use it just a primitive text editor. It does something only when you ask it to. And for a basic usage there is nearly nothing to remember.
I don't know if this can be any good, but maybe a textcalc-like interface that (beside having few graphical buttons for normal operations, and few basic text editing capabilities) allows to use Python may be a good idea. Probably there are better designs for this interface, but it's hard to invent them.
bearophileH...@lycos.com writes: > I use the Python shell daily, plus of course normal editors to edit > python scripts. They both are very useful for different purposes. > But the default interactive shell isn't much handy if you want to > modify the past code to run it again, or you want to embed a bit of > text in the code, or if you want to produce something a bit more > clean that you can save, or just if you want to edit and debug > 7-lines long programs.
Adding an editor to Python solves this problem only for Python. I certainly wouldn't want to learn a new text editor just for one language. You're not *only* programming in Python, I hope?
Many of us solve this by using a single full-featured programmer's editor that allows invoking a program +IBQ- written in any of *dozens or hundreds* of different languages +IBQ- from within the editor.
It's a solution that only requires you to learn one editor interface, having chosen one that's well-supported on all popular platforms and with plug-ins accumulated over many years for a smorgasbord of different tasks. The leaders in the field, by far, are GNU Emacs <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html> and Vim <URL:http://vim.org/>.
-- +AFw- +IBw-Jury: A group of 12 people, who, having lied to the judge | `+AFw- about their health, hearing, and business engagements, have | _o__) failed to fool him.+IB0- +IBQ-Henry L. Mencken | Ben Finney
bearophileH...@lycos.com writes: > I use the Python shell daily, plus of course normal editors to edit > python scripts. They both are very useful for different purposes. > But the default interactive shell isn't much handy if you want to > modify the past code to run it again, or you want to embed a bit of > text in the code, or if you want to produce something a bit more > clean that you can save, or just if you want to edit and debug > 7-lines long programs.
Adding an editor to Python solves this problem only for Python. I certainly wouldn't want to learn a new text editor just for one language. You're not *only* programming in Python, I hope?
Many of us solve this by using a single full-featured programmer's editor that allows invoking a program +IBQ- written in any of *dozens or hundreds* of different languages +IBQ- from within the editor.
It's a solution that only requires you to learn one editor interface, having chosen one that's well-supported on all popular platforms and with plug-ins accumulated over many years for a smorgasbord of different tasks. The leaders in the field, by far, are GNU Emacs <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html> and Vim <URL:http://www.vim.org/>.
-- +AFw- +IBw-Jury: A group of 12 people, who, having lied to the judge | `+AFw- about their health, hearing, and business engagements, have | _o__) failed to fool him.+IB0- +IBQ-Henry L. Mencken | Ben Finney
> I use the Python shell daily, plus of course normal editors to edit > python scripts. They both are very useful for different purposes. But > the default interactive shell isn't much handy if you want to modify > the past code to run it again, or you want to embed a bit of text in > the code, or if you want to produce something a bit more clean that > you can save, or just if you want to edit and debug 7-lines long > programs.
> I have tried IPython, but I have never appreciated it too much, maybe > because it requires me to remember too many things (and because on Win > it's probably a little less handy). Probably I need something closer > to an editor and less close to a shell.
emacs python-mode is a very powerful combo. Write your code in a buffer, send it for evaluation to another buffer running a Python shell, interact with it, switch back to the edit buffer, change your code, lather, rinse, repeat.
> Adding an editor to Python solves this problem only for Python.
I'm sure that once such "editor" (I use the word editor for lack of a better term) is created, it can also be quickly adapted with other dynamic languages, like Ruby, TCL, Lua, Io, Perl, Awk, ecc. Probably it can't be adapted for languages like Java, C++, etc.
> Many of us solve this by using a single full-featured programmer's > editor that allows invoking a program +IBQ- written in any of *dozens or > hundreds* of different languages +IBQ- from within the editor.
I don't know what an IBQ is. But I was not talking about a normal editor. Take a look at TextCalc, for example. I am trying to invent something that I have not seen so far :-)
> It's a solution that only requires you to learn one editor interface,
I'm looking for something very easy to use, probably more easy than the Python shell itself.
I'm probably looking for something based on different ideas.
-------------------
Bruno Desthuilliers:
>emacs python-mode is a very powerful combo. Write your code in a buffer,
send it for evaluation to another buffer running a Python shell, interact with it, switch back to the edit buffer, change your code, lather, rinse, repeat.<
I am sure that's very useful, but it's not what I am looking for. I am looking for something that's a bit closer to the Mathematica shell, but more passive and fitter to edit 10-lines long programs too, and able to save the cleaned text result of the interaction.
bearophileH...@lycos.com wrote: > I use the Python shell daily, plus of course normal editors to edit > python scripts. They both are very useful for different purposes. But > the default interactive shell isn't much handy if you want to modify > the past code to run it again, or you want to embed a bit of text in > the code, or if you want to produce something a bit more clean that > you can save, or just if you want to edit and debug 7-lines long > programs.
> I have tried IPython, but I have never appreciated it too much, maybe > because it requires me to remember too many things (and because on Win > it's probably a little less handy). Probably I need something closer > to an editor and less close to a shell.
> In past I have also used the interactive editor of Mathematica (older > versions, but I think its basic usage isn't changed much later), but > despite being quite handy if you want to mix plotting and the editing > of small formulas, I can't appreciate it to write programs more than 3 > lines long. It's not a good or handy editor, and it has some other > disadvantages
> So I have always tried to think for possible alternative solutions for > an interactive way to use Python. I am not looking for something to > replace the nornal editors used to write long Python programs.
> Despite being very limited and being not integrated with everything > else, it's so handy that for me in certain situations it's the right > tool to use when I have to process numbers and data in simple ways. It > helps me keep all the intermediate solutions, you can save the working > page just as the text file you are seeing, it's "passive", it doesn't > go bang, so if you want you can use it just a primitive text editor. > It does something only when you ask it to. And for a basic usage there > is nearly nothing to remember.
> I don't know if this can be any good, but maybe a textcalc-like > interface that (beside having few graphical buttons for normal > operations, and few basic text editing capabilities) allows to use > Python may be a good idea. Probably there are better designs for this > interface, but it's hard to invent them.
How about IDLE? It's a nice tool for the Python programmer. I've tried lots of IDEs, but when it comes down to it, on small-to-medium jobs I am be very productive indeed using IDLE...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:13:49 -0800 (PST), Vic Kelson <Vic.Kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about IDLE? It's a nice tool for the Python programmer. I've tried > lots of IDEs, but when it comes down to it, on small-to-medium jobs I > am be very productive indeed using IDLE...
> --v
I find Stani's Python Editor (SPE) also good for small to medium jobs, and I think that it might achieve many of the OP's objectives.
Doug Morse wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:13:49 -0800 (PST), Vic Kelson <Vic.Kel...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> How about IDLE? It's a nice tool for the Python programmer. I've tried >> lots of IDEs, but when it comes down to it, on small-to-medium jobs I >> am be very productive indeed using IDLE...
>> --v
> I find Stani's Python Editor (SPE) also good for small to medium jobs, and I > think that it might achieve many of the OP's objectives.
If you just want something small and Python-specific then DrPython is also a reasonable choice. It uses the Scintilla editor component that is also used by Scite, another possibility (though personally I find the bare Scite editor just a little too tweaky to configure).
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:10 AM, <bearophileH...@lycos.com> wrote: > I use the Python shell daily, plus of course normal editors to edit > python scripts. They both are very useful for different purposes. But > the default interactive shell isn't much handy if you want to modify > the past code to run it again, or you want to embed a bit of text in > the code, or if you want to produce something a bit more clean that > you can save, or just if you want to edit and debug 7-lines long > programs.
It is a mix of a shell and an editor, that lets you go back and rewirte history, and execute it again. It is GTK+, and you can write plugins to plot graphics or display html, for example.
-- Eduardo de Oliveira Padoan http://djangopeople.net/edcrypt/ "Distrust those in whom the desire to punish is strong." -- Goethe, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky
Steve Holden wrote: > Doug Morse wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:13:49 -0800 (PST), Vic Kelson <Vic.Kel...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> How about IDLE? It's a nice tool for the Python programmer. I've tried >>> lots of IDEs, but when it comes down to it, on small-to-medium jobs I >>> am be very productive indeed using IDLE...
Since I currently only program in Python, IDLE does fine for me. Write code, hit F5. If the result is not right, maybe type a few interactive lines to get more info before going back to the edit window.
Maybe someday I will look to see what alternatives such as below offer, but if they do not put me in an interactive interpreter or imitation thereof, like IDLE, to do post-mortem examination in, I would not likely switch.
>> I find Stani's Python Editor (SPE) also good for small to medium jobs, and I >> think that it might achieve many of the OP's objectives.
> If you just want something small and Python-specific then DrPython is > also a reasonable choice. It uses the Scintilla editor component that is > also used by Scite, another possibility (though personally I find the > bare Scite editor just a little too tweaky to configure).
- Thank you for the link and the software, I have not tried it yet, but from the screencast it looks quite nice. - I am glad that there are people that don't think that Emacs is (despite being good) the alpha and omega of editing. There's space for other ideas beside Emacs. - Maybe I was describing reinteract there, but that's only the first part of my post :-) - I can see that reinteract is based on a interaction style quite similar to the shell of Mathematica. I was talking about something different, and more similar to TextCalc, but in the end I think reinteract may be good enough for my purposes, so I'll try to run it. And I may be happy enough. - Eventually I may find the time and will to create my "interactive python text" :-) I think there's space for many different solutions. - Despite many years of experiments, development, shells, editors, and the like, I am sure there are other designs not yet tried or not common enough yet (beside the normal editors, shells, smart object- oriented graphical shells like hotwire shell, Resolver One, and few other weird things, like one where you can zoom text and images at different scales, other text-based systems, etc).
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:17:57 -0800, bearophileHUGS wrote: > Ben Finney:
>> Many of us solve this by using a single full-featured programmer's >> editor that allows invoking a program +IBQ- written in any of *dozens >> or hundreds* of different languages +IBQ- from within the editor.
> I don't know what an IBQ is.
+IBQ- seems to be the way your newsreader displays the dashes that where in Ben's posting. I see "em dash" characters there:
In [84]: unicodedata.name(u'—') Out[84]: 'EM DASH'
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:01 PM, <bearophileH...@lycos.com> wrote: > Eduardo O. Padoan: >> You are almost *describing* reinteract:
> - Thank you for the link and the software, I have not tried it yet, > but from the screencast it looks quite nice. > - I am glad that there are people that don't think that Emacs is > (despite being good) the alpha and omega of editing. There's space for > other ideas beside Emacs.
But it is! <wink>
> - Maybe I was describing reinteract there, but that's only the first > part of my post :-) > - I can see that reinteract is based on a interaction style quite > similar to the shell of Mathematica. I was talking about something > different, and more similar to TextCalc, but in the end I think > reinteract may be good enough for my purposes, so I'll try to run it. > And I may be happy enough.
I dont known TextCalc, but I guess that reinteract is flexible enough to the general purpose of "experimenting with Live code".
> - Eventually I may find the time and will to create my "interactive > python text" :-) I think there's space for many different solutions. > - Despite many years of experiments, development, shells, editors, and > the like, I am sure there are other designs not yet tried or not > common enough yet (beside the normal editors, shells, smart object- > oriented graphical shells like hotwire shell, Resolver One, and few > other weird things, like one where you can zoom text and images at > different scales, other text-based systems, etc).
-- Eduardo de Oliveira Padoan http://djangopeople.net/edcrypt/ "Distrust those in whom the desire to punish is strong." -- Goethe, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky
On Thursday 22 January 2009 08:13:49 Vic Kelson wrote:
> How about IDLE? It's a nice tool for the Python programmer. I've tried > lots of IDEs, but when it comes down to it, on small-to-medium jobs I > am be very productive indeed using IDLE...
> Despite being very limited and being not integrated with > everything else, it's so handy that for me in certain situations > it's the right tool to use when I have to process numbers and > data in simple ways. It helps me keep all the intermediate > solutions, you can save the working page just as the text file > you are seeing, it's "passive", it doesn't go bang, so if you > want you can use it just a primitive text editor. It does > something only when you ask it to. And for a basic usage there > is nearly nothing to remember.
This is mostly an aside to your question, but depending on what you aredoing, Speq Mathematics may be an improvement over TextCalc. The homepage is at http://www.speqmath.com/index.php?id=1.
The big differences are that it adds a good deal of functionality (variables, a larger variety of functions, plotting, etc.) and that it treats plain text as an error (unless the text is marked as a comment).
