this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
25 points (93.1% liked)

Python

6392 readers
68 users here now

Welcome to the Python community on the programming.dev Lemmy instance!

πŸ“… Events

PastNovember 2023

October 2023

July 2023

August 2023

September 2023

🐍 Python project:
πŸ’“ Python Community:
✨ Python Ecosystem:
🌌 Fediverse
Communities
Projects
Feeds

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Welcome to a new era of interconnected content discussion with PieFed – a link aggregator, a forum, a hub of social interaction and information, built for the fediverse. Our focus is on individual control, safety, and decentralised power.


Like other platforms in the fediverse, we are a self-governed space for social link aggregation and conversation. We operate without the influence of corporate entities – ensuring that your experience is free of advertisements, invasive tracking, or secret algorithms. On our platform, content is grouped into communities, allowing you to engage with topics of interest and disregard the irrelevant ones. We utilise a voting system to highlight the best content.


Video introduction the codebase

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Yes we could really do with all of those. Patches welcome. Other than a preference for PEP 8 I don't have strong opinions about particular linters or formatters.

I see the benefits of types but am not puritanical about it. I'm ok with the way we're using types at the moment. Most utility functions have types specified, especially those that return database objects so the type information flows up to the routes pretty well. I mostly see it as a way to help my IDE autocomplete work better than as a holy grail. I'm sure there are places where more types could be added but making it a policy that every function must have a type signature seems OTT.