DOC: Remove pyplot vs. OO interface discussion from lifecycle example#31423
Conversation
That discussion is out of scope here, and we generally use OO nowadays.
| <https://pbpython.com/effective-matplotlib.html>`_ | ||
| by Chris Moffitt. It was transformed into this tutorial by Chris Holdgraf. | ||
|
|
||
| A note on the explicit vs. implicit interfaces |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we link to the quick start guide here as a way to guide users back to the rest of the docs?
https://matplotlib.org/stable/users/explain/quick_start.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What makes this example special that warrants referencing the quick start guide?
The pyplot vs. OO was just here because the blog post from which the example was created was a general
https://pbpython.com/effective-matplotlib.html. But in the context of our own docs, we don't need to reference everything back to quick start. Instead, we assume that a user has the basic understanding from quickstart already.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's written as a self-contained doc, so maintaining a bit of context via links seems useful. Crosslinking never hurts and we could do more of it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm of a different opinion here. Examples and tutorials in our docs can and should never be self-contained. You cannot jump into an arbitrary place of the docs and expect to understand it without prior knowledge.
Cross-linking hurts if the topic is not directly relevant to the content at hand because it dillutes focus and creates clutter.
Since we obviously have different opinions, I recuse myself from the topic, as such discusions typically lead nowhere. I leave it up to you guys to fix the lifecycle tutorial.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure fair enough, but I apologize if it seemed I was demanding this - it was just a suggestion, and you asked why I was making it, so I answered.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Examples and tutorials in our docs can and should never be self-contained.
I think that's a part of a larger discussion on modality and purpose. I also agree w/ @jklymak that a cross-reference is nice to have (here mostly to keep the spirit of the original) but I think removing this is a plus 'cause seperatly I think it's a bad idea to explain things twice cause that introduces the potential for drift.
story645
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for reopening and cleaning this up!
|
To move forward, I'm merging this with one approval per our docs policy. |
That discussion is out of scope here, and we generally use OO nowadays.
Likewise, we do not need to explain the terms figure/Axes.