Aside: I'm not a fan of the "for humans" label that seems to be common among some Python projects now.

It implies the other tools are possibly designed by monkeys, to a degree, which is often totally not the case.

As a particular example, while some libs are "friendly", they are also limited.

In this case, celery is implied to be not "for humans", but it actually offers distributed job queuing and jobs that can survive a reboot, which is pretty darn important.

I'm not going to name names of other libs doing this, but there are a few that have picked API simplicity over complete feature set. This is obviously a balance - BUT I think it unfairly casts the alternatively libs in a questionable light, and often they can do a lot more.

FWIW, the Ruby-design into the method space can also be reduced if desired to make this a bit more Pythonic (though some things are personal preferences):

    scheduler = schedule.scheduler()

    scheduler(callback=job).every(minutes=10)

    scheduler(callback=job).every(day=1).at(hour=10, minutes=30)

Having functions like "Wednesday" or "minutes" complicate programatic usage, where in the above, it would be possible to pass in a constant.

One thing I also notice (not sure if Ruby inspired or not), is that it's keeping global state in the module (see run_pending) rather than having different scheduler objects. This somewhat limits reusability by having this embedded magic and not being able to isolate schedulers.