requests

greenthread and get instant asynchronicity (excluding hiccups with a few 3rd party libraries that have network I/O in native extensions, which is rare). The one downside is it achieves its magic with standard library monkeypatching, which is pretty hideous, but it's done very seamlessly. Developers are able to write the exact same code with or without monkeypatching and not worry about what it's doing. I've never encountered an issue with the monkeypatching when using any standard or 3rd party library. [1] http://www.gevent.org/

for non-human readable strings and double quotes for human readable strings. 4. If you mean here[5] then there is a len just above it to catch the 'expected' error/missing element, just the .text part is unchecked. As for the general lack of checks - I don't put them into my GreaseMonkey or random Python one off scraping code either. Site layout is invariant of a certain version of a scraper script so if some field is missing or something like that then the website layout must have changed and the entire script probably needs to be reworked (or the field is not always present there in the first place so the script is also useless in that particular scraping case) and might as well crash (or if its used by someone they can catch the exception). Either way (crash or catch) when something you expected to surely be there is missing the results are not coming or might be wrong. That code as it is now anticipates that there might not be such an element but if there is it must have the expected field. If the site has been observed to always work like that (certain element might be missing but surely has that field when its there) then script just works like that and guards against the first expected possibility (missing element) but not the second (missing field) since if how site is laid out, how data is stored in elements, etc. changed significantly, then the script also needs changes or risks producing bad or incomplete output (arguably worse as a default than a loud failure would be, it also depends on what you're doing and what the scrape is for). I'd assume most users and programmers would rather get an error than have script return an empty list (despite there being content up there) just because the layout changed. The only other solution (other than return a wrong result by design and hide the errors or log them somewhere where no one cares to read anyway) would be to catch such exceptions somewhere high and either pack them into a new exception that is thrown with more information (what URL, what element content was exactly, entire response text, etc.) but that's probably too much care/work for such a one off script OR throw your entirely own ones from some low place, but it's vanity then because Python exceptions point really strongly to where they were thrown and in what call stack so it's just as clear what was broken without the need to add lots of checks yourself and throw a "element X is missing field Y that should always be there" message. [1] - https://github.com/requests/requests/blob/master/requests/se... [2] - http://docs.python-requests.org/en/master/user/advanced/#ses... [3] - https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#string-quotes [4] - http://www.effbot.org/zone/default-values.htm [5] - https://github.com/tducret/amazon-scraper-python/blob/master...