Contrast with Urwid, which imposes it’s own (inflexible) paradigm. Having used it on a project, I can say that if you don’t want to use Urwid in the exact manner that it’s authors intended, you’re in for a struggle.
Blessings seems to really grok what it means to be Pythonic: elegance and simplicity, but not at the expense of power.
On the other hand, do you think we’d have been able to use blessings for ncnyt? Given that it was a hackathon project (~20 hours) having cookie-cutter widgets to manipulate probably simplified a lot of the development, even if the model is very rigid.
Only good sites will do this anyway.
Yes, but if the good sites all did post their storage scheme, then I would think twice about registering. As it is now, I have no way to be assured that my account with any given service is safe.
Maybe. I don’t think it’ll get enough traction to make this a useful heuristic.
I see a few issues with a system like this, as opposed to LOG/DEBUG/INFO/WARN:
 too few levels (this is only a problem on bigger systems)
 it needs to be explained (one could probably figure most of it out given enough of the logs, but not based on limited chunks)
[*] non-standard: doesn’t work with existing frameworks, isn’t immediately familiar, and won’t work with tools that expect logs formatted in another way
Nonetheless, the succinctness and simplicity are appealing enough that I might start doing this for my own projects. This is an awesome system for its intended use.
I guess I should have clarified – this is for software I “own”, i.e. mostly my own personal projects and internal tools.
It may not be immediately familiar, but now I have an explanation online I can point people to ;)
It is pretty clear that you only use it internally; I was just trying to hypothesize whether it would be feasible to use this scheme on a wider scale, and I think it would if you could gather a critical mass of code that follows it.