[anentropic]

Too much abbreviation!

pypeline --> pypeln

multiprocessing pipeline --> pr

threads pipeline --> th

asyncio pipeline --> io

this is totally unnecessary

If I want to use short abbreviated names in my code I can always `from pypeline import multiprocess_pipeline as pr`

Your library shouldn't export them like this as the default.

`io` is especially bad since this overshadows the `io` module in the Python stdlib

[ricw]

Not a fan of this. You save a couple of chars and massively decrease legibility. Anyone new to the project will find it way harder to understand. Instead of abbreviation hell, just spell it out and move on. Not worth saving a couple of characters.

[maxander]

True masters of naming make sure to use variable names that are long but unambiguous after the first several characters, so that with tab-completion you get the best of both worlds.

[cgarciae]

Point taken! Thanks a lot for your feedback. Just a few points: * pypeline is already taken :( * My main reason for this was because initially I was thinking that you did an `import pypeln as pl` and then called things like e.g. `pl.pr.map` since you cant abbreviate the module inside `pl` then I picked short names, but then I decided to go for and import the module kind of strategy.

I am thinking about expanding the module names to their worker names: * pr --> process * th --> thread * io --> task

And then have the conventions * from pypeln import process as pr * from pypeln import thread as th * from pypeln import task as io # as ta?

This conversation is very valuable, thank you all for the feedback.

[anentropic]

Hi, just coming back to say congrats on your library and I wish you all the best with it :)

I see your reasoning here (`import pypeln as pl`) but I still think where you have submodules you should use unabbreviated words for their names.

For me I'd be happy with `pl.process.map` in my code, but `pl.pr.map` feels a bit too obscure to have as the default.

These things are quite subjective of course, but part of that subjective judgement comes from the experience of what is commonly done in other Python libraries (the stdlib is a bit of a mixed bag in this regard unfortunately, riddled with CamelCase and other abominations).

[bb88]

First of all, it's super cool. :)

There are a lot of "pipe" projects in PyPi, but your project is also about process management. Maybe you should avoid "pipe" in your name perhaps? FlowProcessor? nFlow? xFlow?

I do agree that you should avoid io for asyncio. You should probably at least use aio, but there's no reason you can't have asyncio_task, thread_task, multiprocessing_task.

Lastly, in my mind the killer app for this would be to allow something that works on top of Celery in production, but then be able to fall back to say multiprocessing or threading when running locally. That would allow me to prototype something, and then when I want to scale, I can just change a config setting.

[cgarciae]

Hey, thanks for all the feedback. I will change the naming since its something most of you have agreed is a good change.

The goal I have for Pypeline is much simpler: let you easily setup data pipelines where you leverage processes, threads and asyncio where they are good at. So in my mind a killer app would be a pipeline that maybe starts with an asyncio stage for e.g. downloading images, maybe then a multiprocess stage for e.g. doing image processing, and finally a threading stage for e.g. interacting with the OS.

Right now I see Pypeline more as an easy to use single machine tool instead of a higher level distributed abstraction like Celery. Maybe other framework could leverage Pypeline to ease their work.

[bb88]

So then I would want to have one more stage... a celery stage for when you want to cluster work across multiple machines. :)

[PurpleRamen]

> My main reason for this was because initially I was thinking that you did an `import pypeln as pl` and then called things like e.g. `pl.pr.map` since you cant abbreviate the module inside `pl` then I picked short names

"Assumptions are the root of all evil."

With autocomplete a coder has no reason to use shortnames anyway.

[neuromantik8086]

"import pypeln as pl" could cause quite a bit of confusion in Poland I would imagine.

[bb88]

And maybe perl...

[cgarciae]

jajajajaja

[dajohnson89]

At risk of speaking from ignorance (i dont really know python), isn't this succinctness an aim of python? A lot of python enthusiasts i speak with decry the verbosity of Java and point to how much less code it takes to do the same thing in python.

[trymas]

Python has a famous adage `explicit better than implicit`.

You want to be explicit but still concise while writing python.

I do not have any experience with Java, but I guess when writing Java you can feel that you use too many words than needed (i.e. definition of verbose [0]), wikipedia has a hello world example[1] and it feels just heavy.

IMHO if you write pythonic code, very often it feels like writing/reading prose, seems like talking to computer. You are not too implicit, neither too verbose.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verbose

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#"H...

[agumonkey]

I'm guilty of this, because words are so meaningless to me. I'd rather have single lettre or glyph than ~clear yet ambiguous words.

[dec0dedab0de]

It's really more about readability, In this case threads_pipeline is much easier to understand than th. Descriptive names also means needing less comments.

[anentropic]

The succinctness of Python (such as there is) comes from the syntax itself. On the other hand, obscure variable names are discouraged. It's not a 'code golf' language. The aim is clarity and readability - unobscured by either verbose boilerplate or excessive brevity.

A library author should provide names which are descriptive and clear. Users can then abbreviate them however much or little as we choose (by import aliasing). For example it is very common to see `import numpy as np`... but you wouldn't want them to publish the library as `np`. It should have its proper name.

One reason for this is if I'm exploring code in a REPL or IDE with tab-completion. You want to have some idea what a module is for, without having to play 'guess the abbreviation'.

[rcthompson]

And it's especially unnecessary since Python already supports abbreviation during import. It could just as easily be "from pypeline import process as pr" or something similar.

[sebcat]

Agreed. When it comes to naming things, I really like the way Russ Cox puts it: https://research.swtch.com/names

[thenaturalist]

Absolutely agree with this.