> write your code as valid programs with comments.
That's what I do! Then I have a script that converts my python program to shitty json that my colleague--who can only conceive to work inside a notebook--can run it. Finally, another script translates back the json to a readable code; and more importantly, to something that can meaningfully be put into git.
I would love if the jupyter interface allowed to save the notebook directly into a program with comments. Then all this silly sorcery would not be necessary.
But that's besides the point. The jupyter ecosystem, like other widespread and unwieldy formats such as Microsoft Word and PDF, poses a brutal obstruction to Unix workflows.
Yes, my script simply calls the nbconvert library, with some trickery to ensure that the result is idempotent. But I would like not to need this script, that instead the jupyter interface worked with valid python files directly (maybe after enabling some option).
> poses a brutal obstruction to Unix workflows.
It's not as much the notebook itself, but the file format chosen by default by the notebook. If it was a human-editable textfile there would be no problem, and there is no practical obstruction for that (other that young programmers today cannot conceive a different "serialization" format than json).
That's what I do! Then I have a script that converts my python program to shitty json that my colleague--who can only conceive to work inside a notebook--can run it. Finally, another script translates back the json to a readable code; and more importantly, to something that can meaningfully be put into git.
I would love if the jupyter interface allowed to save the notebook directly into a program with comments. Then all this silly sorcery would not be necessary.