Jul 21, 2020

Sparking Joy with Python

Conventions Are Small Magic

Marie Kondo holding up the python logo

Adapted from photo by RISE, CC BY 2.0.

I have started following a few simple rules when I write Python that helps me focus on stuff that matters. For some folks, these conventions may already be second nature. But I read code all the time that follows none of them, and I thought they might help.

Absolute imports

I feel like an insane person when I think about Python imports. Has anyone else struggled way too much with this? Whenever I would start a project that gets to medium complexity I would freshly try to learn how to import stuff in Python. This usually involved the following process:

  1. Try splattering import name and import .name and import ..name around your code, add __init__.pys everywhere, try installing things locally with pip, start linking directories around, then get fed up with yourself and…

  2. Try to read Python’s official explanations of how modules and imports work. Completely fail to see how it applies to your use case.

  3. Search on Stack Overflow and find some people manipulating Python’s path using sys.path and __init__.py files and PYTHONPATH, and other people yelling at them never to do that, offering solutions that don’t quite apply to your use case.

  4. Look at larger Python projects on GitHub, which manipulate Pythons’s path using sys.path, __init__.pys, and PYTHONPATH.01

  5. Cry silently for a while. Consider going back to steps 1 or 2 Consider copy pasting code. Consider switching programming languages or careers.

I finally came across a guide—which for the life of me I cannot find now—that outlined a practice that has worked for me since:

For example, say you come up with dumb codenames for your projects like “ice”,02 your source code tree would look like:


Then you would import each file from anywhere else like:

import ice.data
import ice.util
import ice.models.bert
import ice.models.singularity
import ice.runners.trainer

Or, you know, like:

from ice import data
from ice import util
from ice.models import bert
from ice.models import singularity
from ice.runners import trainer

And you could run each file like:

python -m ice.data
python -m ice.util
python -m ice.models.bert
python -m ice.models.singularity
python -m ice.runners.trainer

Unfortunately, there are some annoyances: you don’t get shell autocomplete with python -m, and logging is less intuitive.03 There are also some other complications to consider: how to have separate directories for test code, and how to allow you to run without -m (e.g., python ice/data.py).

Fortunately, these are all overcome-able. And by always using absolute imports this way, you get a single, consistent import strategy that lets you import anything from anywhere else. For me, this always just works. If you’re looking for a fire-and-forget setup, give this a whirl.04

Organize imports

Three groups: built-ins, 3rd party, my own code. Order them alphabetically in each group.

import argparse
import json
import logging

import torch
import torch.nn as nn
from tqdm import tqdm

from ice import data
from ice.models import singularity

Why? This makes it easy to see what is imported at a glance. It’s arbitrary, especially alphabetization. But it’s one less thing to decide about, and one more piece of consistency so you can skim your own code faster.

Put everything in functions

Don’t put code in the top-level of a file.

# We may have a bad time.
i_am_global_now_lol = 17
should_i_be_a_constant = 'maybe'

# Better
def main() -> None:
i_am_global_now_lol = 17
should_i_be_a_constant = 'maybe'

Why? If you want to import something from the file, like a function, you will run all the code that you put in the top-level scope. This means slow stuff, and things you don’t want to run, all get run when you import it. You’ll also end up with everything in the same scope, which can make variables hard to track. You may end up accidentally using them in functions.

Minimize mutation

Straight to an example:

# lots of mutation. Please forgive
# that this is contrived.
path = cur_dir
path += filename
path += '.txt'
# … say, 40 lines later …
path += '.gz'
# what’s in path? you have to decode
# backwards to find out


# no mutation
path_txt = os.path.join(
cur_dir, '{}.txt'.format(fn))
path_gz = os.path.join(
cur_dir, '{}.gz'.format(fn))
path_txtgz = os.path.join(
cur_dir, '{}.txt.gz'.format(fn))

Why? I find that if I minimize mutating variables, I have to remember less and don’t accidentally use the wrong piece of state. This example is not very convincing (I’m sorry), but it truly does eliminate a whole class of bugs.

Always Write Minimal Comments

I mean both interpretations of this: (1) always write comments instead of skipping them; (2) always write minimal comments instead of long ones. Always do both.

Let’s look at examples.

Bad: no comments:

# Bad
def favorite_dish(
since_sec = -1

Bad: long comments. Putting argument types in the docstring (unhelpful for type checking, requires more space, requires following conventions), and writing verbose obvious descriptions of each type and return value:

# Bad
def favorite_dish(
since_sec = -1
"""Returns favorite dish from
`all_dishes` for `user_id`
within `since_sec`, or any time
if -1.

user_id (int): The ID of the
all_dishes (Dishes): The
collection of all
since_sec (int, optional):
Maximum age of dishes
considered. If -1 is
provided, considers
dishes of any age.
Defaults to -1.

Dish: The user’s favorite


Bad: Adding type annotations, but keeping all the other crap:

# Bad
def favorite_dish(
user_id: int,
all_dishes: Dishes,
since_sec: int = -1,
) -> Dish:
"""Returns favorite dish for
`user_id` from `all_dishes`
within `since_sec`, or any time
if -1.

user_id: The ID of the user.
all_dishes: The collection
of all dishes.
since_sec: Maximum age of
dishes considered. If
-1 is provided,
considers dishes of any
age. Defaults to -1.

Dish: The user’s favorite


Good: what if we just wrote this:

# Good
def favorite_dish(
user_id: int,
all_dishes: Dishes,
since_sec: int = -1,
) -> Dish:
"""Returns favorite dish within
`since_sec`, or any time if


This example is simple enough that you can probably get away with no comment. But consider some real code that I wrote recently:

# Good luck figuring what this does
# without reading the code.
def preprocess(
path: str
) -> List[str]:

# Good luck figuring out what this
# returns without reading the code.
def item_to_id_pieces(
item: Dict[str, Any],
side: str,
) -> Tuple[str, int, int, int, int]:

Why? All code is a burden, and comments are doubly so, because they can silently go out of date. This is especially true when writing code solo, and you have little incentive to keep comments up-to-date. The main burden for me was that when I would start a function, I would sometimes spend as much time writing the docstring as I did the code itself. Even worse, when I would change a function four or five times, I would have to bookkeep the docstring every time.

Eventually, I realized that what I really wanted from docstrings were types, and a short summary. Having type annotations that are actually checked (e.g., by mypy) keeps them up-to-date. For a while I considered the short summary optional. But I found that, inevitably, I would appreciate them when I came back to the code base after a break. I try to keep the summary so that it fits on one line as an extra terseness challenge for myself. While difficult, I find this is often surprisingly possible. Doing this helps if your editor supports tooltips, or while skimming code.

There’s a pattern in writing code for projects in grad school:

  1. project development: comments not needed, all state in your brain
  2. submission: not reading your code for months, working on other things
  3. revision or publishing code: OMG, what the hell was all this, how does anything work

These short function summaries really help with phase 3.

One more thing: I also think file-level summaries are really helpful. Having a one-sentence summary at the top of each file helps immensely when coming back to a project. I also have a scripts/ directory with a dozen or two scripts which munge data in similar but different ways.

Prefer Pure Functions with Minimal Interfaces

Instead of using classes and methods, or functions that take class instances:

# class with method
class Thing(object):
state_a: str
state_b: int
state_c: float
state_d: List[str]
state_e: Dict[str, float]

def compute(self) -> int:

# function that takes an instance
def compute(t: Thing) -> int:

… I try to use functions that specify only the state they need:

def compute(
state_a: str,
state_c: float
) -> int:

I found myself doing this for two reasons:

  1. If a function is an object’s method, it’s hard to reuse the function elsewhere. If you discover you want to reuse the logic, you must make a big ol’ object to call it on.

  2. If a function accepts a big object with lots of state as an argument, it’s hard to use that function elsewhere because it’s hard to figure out what subset of the object’s state is actually required.

In other words, in service of reusing and changing code, I found it easiest to keep functions out of objects, and keep the APIs as slim as possible.

The fact that I need to reuse and change code all the time is probably because of the kind of programming I’m doing with Python. I never really know the whole scope of the project, and the project direction changes often. Those needs seem to fit better with separate functions that only require the state they need.

I’d like to note here that I think I’m just rediscovering what functional programmers and API designers have written books about for decades.

Case Study: args

In the pytorch code I read a lot these days, there is an extremely annoying pattern I encounter constantly:

def do_something(args):

Here, args is something05 created by an ArgumentParser — i.e., command line arguments. This is a legendarily annoying way to write functions if you want anyone else to understand and change your code:

These two factors make a function that takes args a HUGE interface, which by default contains dozens of things, whose actual values are hard to trace down.

On the flip side, I get why people do it. Just having args makes it really easy to plumb a massive amount of global state all throughout the program. And it makes changing APIs easy… because you don’t actually change the API, you just cram more stuff into args.

There’s a balance to be had here. If you’re using more than three or four things from args, sure, just pass the whole thing in. But just one or two? Help your dear readers and send in those arguments directly.

Write Less Code

This is hard to keep in mind, but it’s the most crucial bit. All code is a burden. The less code the better.


You will have as little code as possible, with reasonable interfaces, less mutation, concise comments, and skimmable imports.

Sparking Joy with Python

Like a tiny, old apartment, Python may not immediately spark joy. You have to work at it. I hope these posts help you in some little way. And I wish you joy.


  1. Even The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Python mucks with sys.path. ↩︎

  2. I have nothing more to say on this topic. ↩︎

  3. It turns out that basically every guide is written assuming you’re logging while running with python ice/data.py and not python -m ice.data, and if you try to configure different loggers per module you’re going to be very confused trying to get a robust logging system set up. At least I have been thoroughly confused by this twice. ↩︎

  4. I feel a bit guilty about my attitude here. Wouldn’t the right thing to do be to really learn how Python packages and modules work, and be able to build your own project structure and import scheme from first principles? Well, maybe… and yet… and yet… I just can’t bring myself to care about this more than I care about building stuff. ↩︎

  5. Specifically, it’s a Namespace object. ↩︎