PyLint, PyChecker or PyFlakes? [closed]

问题

I would like to get some feedback on these tools on :

features;
adaptability;
ease of use and learning curve.

回答1:

Well, I am a bit curious, so I just tested the 3 myself right after asking the question ;-)

Ok, this is not a very serious review but here is what I can say :

I tried the tools with the default settings (it's important because you can pretty much choose your check rules) on the following script :

#!/usr/local/bin/python
# by Daniel Rosengren modified by e-satis

import sys, time
stdout = sys.stdout

BAILOUT = 16
MAX_ITERATIONS = 1000

class Iterator(object) :

    def __init__(self):

        print 'Rendering...'
        for y in xrange(-39, 39): 
            stdout.write('\n')
            for x in xrange(-39, 39):
                if self.mandelbrot(x/40.0, y/40.0) :
                    stdout.write(' ')
                else:
                    stdout.write('*')


    def mandelbrot(self, x, y):
        cr = y - 0.5
        ci = x
        zi = 0.0
        zr = 0.0

        for i in xrange(MAX_ITERATIONS) :
            temp = zr * zi
            zr2 = zr * zr
            zi2 = zi * zi
            zr = zr2 - zi2 + cr
            zi = temp + temp + ci

            if zi2 + zr2 > BAILOUT:
                return i

        return 0

t = time.time()
Iterator() 
print '\nPython Elapsed %.02f' % (time.time() - t)

As a result :

PyChecker is troublesome because it compiles the module to analyze it. If you don't want your code to run (e.g, it performs a SQL query), that's bad.
PyFlakes is supposed to be lite. Indeed, it decided that the code was perfect. I am looking for something quite severe so I don't think I'll go for it.
PyLint has been very talkative and rated the code 3/10 (OMG, I'm a dirty coder !).

Strongs points of PyLint:

Very descriptive and accurate report.
Detect some code smells. Here it told me to drop my class to write something with functions because the OO approach was useless in this specific case. Something I knew, but never expected a computer to tell me :-p
The fully corrected code run faster (no class, no reference binding...).
Made by a French team. Ok it's not a plus for everybody, but I like it ;-)

Cons of PyLint:

Some rules are really strict. I know that you can change it and that the default is to match PEP8, but is it such a crime to write 'for x in seq'? Apparently yes because you can't write a variable name with less than 3 letters. I will change that.
Very very talkative. Be ready to use your eyes.

Corrected script (with lazy doc strings and variable names) :

#!/usr/local/bin/python
# by Daniel Rosengren, modified by e-satis
"""
Module doctring
"""


import time
from sys import stdout

BAILOUT = 16
MAX_ITERATIONS = 1000

def mandelbrot(dim_1, dim_2):
    """
    function doc string
    """
    cr1 = dim_1 - 0.5
    ci1 = dim_2
    zi1 = 0.0
    zr1 = 0.0

    for i in xrange(MAX_ITERATIONS) :
        temp = zr1 * zi1
        zr2 = zr1 * zr1
        zi2 = zi1 * zi1
        zr1 = zr2 - zi2 + cr1
        zi1 = temp + temp + ci1

        if zi2 + zr2 > BAILOUT:
            return i

    return 0

def execute() :
    """
    func doc string
    """
    print 'Rendering...'
    for dim_1 in xrange(-39, 39): 
        stdout.write('\n')
        for dim_2 in xrange(-39, 39):
            if mandelbrot(dim_1/40.0, dim_2/40.0) :
                stdout.write(' ')
            else:
                stdout.write('*')


START_TIME = time.time()
execute()
print '\nPython Elapsed %.02f' % (time.time() - START_TIME)

EDIT :

Thanks to Rudiger Wolf, I discovered pep8 that does exactly what its name suggests: matching PEP8. It has found several syntax no-nos that PyLint did not. But PyLint found stuff that was not specifically linked to PEP8 but interesting. Both tools are interesting and complementary.

Eventually I will use both since there are really easy to install (via packages or setuptools) and the output text is so easy to chain.

To give you a little idea of their output:

pep8:

./python_mandelbrot.py:4:11: E401 multiple imports on one line
./python_mandelbrot.py:10:1: E302 expected 2 blank lines, found 1
./python_mandelbrot.py:10:23: E203 whitespace before ':'
./python_mandelbrot.py:15:80: E501 line too long (108 characters)
./python_mandelbrot.py:23:1: W291 trailing whitespace
./python_mandelbrot.py:41:5: E301 expected 1 blank line, found 3

PyLint:

************* Module python_mandelbrot
C: 15: Line too long (108/80)
C: 61: Line too long (85/80)
C:  1: Missing docstring
C:  5: Invalid name "stdout" (should match (([A-Z_][A-Z0-9_]*)|(__.*__))$)
C: 10:Iterator: Missing docstring
C: 15:Iterator.__init__: Invalid name "y" (should match [a-z_][a-z0-9_]{2,30}$)
C: 17:Iterator.__init__: Invalid name "x" (should match [a-z_][a-z0-9_]{2,30}$)

[...] and a very long report with useful stats like :

Duplication
-----------

+-------------------------+------+---------+-----------+
|                         |now   |previous |difference |
+=========================+======+=========+===========+
|nb duplicated lines      |0     |0        |=          |
+-------------------------+------+---------+-----------+
|percent duplicated lines |0.000 |0.000    |=          |
+-------------------------+------+---------+-----------+