Mailing List Archive

On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 02:05:58AM +0000, Rick Robino wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I've been watching this group for some time and just now getting warm to
> Python. Looking at source examples has been great, but for completeness'
> sake I'd like to get more of the "why" maybe found in a book. Since Python
> is at 1.5.2 and people are talking about 2.0 as if it's around the corner,
> I was wondering if anyone here could give me some advice as to whether or
> not "Programming Python" is useful, if the current edition is still
> current, if I should wait for the "Learning Python", or if I should use
> some other resources.
>
> I expect to come up to speed fairly quickly and I'm just looking for
> those fundamental insights into OOP and Python that can build up the
> kind of inuition and understanding one needs in order to "get
> comfortable" connecting/creating the dots. Currently I only program
> small - medium programs in C and shell (Korn). Any sage pointers to
> resources?
>
> TIA,
>
> --Rick
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Rick Robino rrobino@wavedivision.com
>
> --
> http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

I recommend you read the tutorials and other official documentations
at <www.python.org/doc/> first. The "Programming Python" is very
disorganized; it's okey for first reading, but, later, it's very hard
to go back to find the pages you want.

William

Rick Robino writes:

> I've been watching this group for some time and just now getting
> warm to Python. Looking at source examples has been great, but for
> completeness' sake I'd like to get more of the "why" maybe found in
> a book. Since Python is at 1.5.2 and people are talking about 2.0 as
> if it's around the corner, I was wondering if anyone here could give
> me some advice as to whether or not "Programming Python" is useful,
> if the current edition is still current, if I should wait for the
> "Learning Python", or if I should use some other resources.

Python 2 is around a really, really big corner, and then down the
block quite a ways. Python 1.6 sometime in 2000 (which will be
backwards compatible), so no 2 until 2001 or 2002.

Learning Python is on the shelves. Haven't read it. Nobody's
flamed it, and that's a _very_ good sign. There's only a few things
out of date in PP, and you'll find updates on Mark's web site. I
liked PP very much (and the difficult to find Internet Programming
with Python, Watters et al, M&T books). When Mark wrote PP, he
thought it might be the only Python book ever, so he stuffed in
everything he could think of. So don't feel bad if you skip stuff.

> I expect to come up to speed fairly quickly and I'm just looking for
> those fundamental insights into OOP and Python that can build up the
> kind of inuition and understanding one needs in order to "get
> comfortable" connecting/creating the dots. Currently I only program
> small - medium programs in C and shell (Korn). Any sage pointers to
> resources?
>
> TIA,
>
> --Rick
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Rick Robino
> rrobino@wavedivision.com
>
> --
> http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

- Gordon

Thanks Gordon and William!

> Rick Robino originally posted:
>> I've been watching this group for some time and just now getting
>> warm to Python. Looking at source examples has been great, but for
>> completeness' sake I'd like to get more of the "why" maybe found in
>> a book. Since Python is at 1.5.2 and people are talking about 2.0 as
>> if it's around the corner, I was wondering if anyone here could give
>> me some advice as to whether or not "Programming Python" is useful,
>> if the current edition is still current, if I should wait for the
>> "Learning Python", or if I should use some other resources.

Gordon McMillan <gmcm@hypernet.com> wrote:
> Python 2 is around a really, really big corner, and then down the
> block quite a ways. Python 1.6 sometime in 2000 (which will be
> backwards compatible), so no 2 until 2001 or 2002.

I didn't do alot of research, but I couldn't get a good feel from
the huge thread that has been going on here named after 2.0. Appreciate
the ETA.

I have read the tutorial and it is wonderful, especially the couple
extra smaller ones mentioned in the "Python as a first language" thread.
Just wanted more meat; you know how that is ;)

> Learning Python is on the shelves. Haven't read it. Nobody's
> flamed it, and that's a _very_ good sign. There's only a few things
> out of date in PP, and you'll find updates on Mark's web site. I
> liked PP very much (and the difficult to find Internet Programming
> with Python, Watters et al, M&T books). When Mark wrote PP, he
> thought it might be the only Python book ever, so he stuffed in
> everything he could think of. So don't feel bad if you skip stuff.

Hmm... the Internet Programming book sounds interesting. I'll pick up
that and also the new book to check it out - I'll be a good test ;) I
have one of those weird learning curves where I need things explained
really simply at first and then I can usually jump up pretty fast. I'll
let you all know how I thought the book was. Daring advertisement...
still feels like there is nothing I can't do in shell that perl can do,
cuz maybe it looks so much like shell? Most of my friends would slap
me silly for such heresy but after poking around with python for a couple
of weeks, I think its quite nice.

--Rick
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rick Robino rrobino [at] wavedivision.com

Rick Robino wrote:

> Gordon McMillan <gmcm@hypernet.com> wrote:
> > Python 2 is around a really, really big corner, and then down the
> > block quite a ways. Python 1.6 sometime in 2000 (which will be
> > backwards compatible), so no 2 until 2001 or 2002.
>
> I didn't do alot of research, but I couldn't get a good feel from
> the huge thread that has been going on here named after 2.0. Appreciate
> the ETA.

Python 2, while one of the favorite topics, is actually (as far as
known) in complete vaporware stage, and no public designs exist. Of
course, Python 2 will also solve all our problems, be resistent to
whitespace eating nanoviruses, and be both garbage collected and
reference counted, automagically. It'll feature the solution to
assignments in expressions too!

For some reason Pythoneers in this newsgroup (me included) like to talk
about improving the language, though it's a very nice language already.
Although some see this as a bad sign, I think the fairly intelligent
discussion that *usually* is the result is quite interesting. Some
discussions excepted. :)

Thanks to some newsgroup luminaries like Tim Peters (Tim, you're a
newsgroup luminary now!), who seems to have programmed in just about any
language in existence and can compare them all fairly to Python, the
level of discussion remains fairly mature at most times. Though the
latest Python 2 thread became a bit too emotional for my tastes in
places.

The *true* Python 2 things are the rare statements made by Guido on it
(and rumors of his statements :).

Regards,

Martijn

"Learning Python" is just great!! I have only started reading but it already
answered many of my newbie-questions. Some time ago I tried reading
"Programming Python" but I find it quite hard to digest. LP seems much more
readable for the beginner IMHO.

Monika

Rick Robino <see-sig@wavedivision.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
7jki66$qam$1@news.gstis.net...
> Greetings,
>
> I've been watching this group for some time and just now getting warm to
> Python. Looking at source examples has been great, but for completeness'
> sake I'd like to get more of the "why" maybe found in a book. Since Python
> is at 1.5.2 and people are talking about 2.0 as if it's around the corner,
> I was wondering if anyone here could give me some advice as to whether or
> not "Programming Python" is useful, if the current edition is still
> current, if I should wait for the "Learning Python", or if I should use
> some other resources.
>
> I expect to come up to speed fairly quickly and I'm just looking for
> those fundamental insights into OOP and Python that can build up the
> kind of inuition and understanding one needs in order to "get
> comfortable" connecting/creating the dots. Currently I only program
> small - medium programs in C and shell (Korn). Any sage pointers to
> resources?
>
> TIA,
>
> --Rick
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Rick Robino rrobino@wavedivision.com

Rick Robino <see-sig@wavedivision.com> wrote:
> I've been watching this group for some time and just now getting warm to
> Python. Looking at source examples has been great, but for completeness'
> sake I'd like to get more of the "why" maybe found in a book.

Programming Python was written to given you the "why";
it's as much about the process of programming (and how
python affects that), as about the python language itself.
and most of it will work just fine with 1.6. you'll find the
necessary updates (up until 1.5.2) at:

http://home.rmi.net/~lutz/

also note that Programming Python is *not* a tutorial
(though you'll find one in an appendix), and it's *not*
a reference manual. many PP critics seems to have
missed that.

but you may find Learning Python a better choice,
though. see below.

> Since Python is at 1.5.2 and people are talking about 2.0
> as if it's around the corner.

it's not. forget everything you've ever heard about it.
it only exists as a few ideas in Guido's head, and he's
about to embark on a "programming for the masses"
project, so those ideas are likely to change...

next stop is 1.6.

probably early next year, or so. expect unicode, a
more modular interpreter, string methods, and pro-
bably lots of changes under the hood. hardly any
major changes on the surface.

if I'd were you, I'd stop worrying about the future,
and learn to love what Python can offer you today!

(btw, there are LOTS of books coming out now, so
changing Python in a way that renders them useless
would be very, very stupid... and if Guido suddenly
loses his mind, I can guarantee that others will step
in and maintain the 1.X series for another 30 years
or so...)

> I was wondering if anyone here could give me some advice as to whether or
> not "Programming Python" is useful, if the current edition is still
> current, if I should wait for the "Learning Python", or if I should use
> some other resources.

Learning Python is available, since long. if you're a new-
comer to python, it's by far your best choice.

the five-star rating at amazon isn't there by accident...

btw, If you're going to buy it via amazon, consider
supporting the Python Software Association:

http://www.python.org/psa/bookstore/

</F>

(and this concludes my weekly broadcast to c.l.py ;-)

Isn't PP due for 2nd edition soon?

--
-Curtis Yanko


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

>>>>> "RR" == Rick Robino <see-sig@wavedivision.com> writes:

RR> wondering if anyone here could give me some advice as to whether
RR> or not "Programming Python" is useful, if the current edition is
RR> still current, if I should wait for the "Learning Python", or if
RR> I should use some other resources.

>>>>> "GMcM" == Gordon McMillan <gmcm@hypernet.com> writes:

GMcM> Learning Python is on the shelves. Haven't read it. Nobody's
GMcM> flamed it, and that's a _very_ good sign.

I bought a copy of Learning Python in a local technical bookstore that
doesn't have a very good selection, so it ought to be easy to find.

I haven't read the book carefully, but I did read through the chapter
on classes (Chap. 6). I thought it was an excellent introduction to
OOP and Python. It is much more thorough than the Python tutorial and
other free documentation. So I don't think you'll go wrong with
Learning Python.

Jeremy

Gordon McMillan wrote:
> Rick Robino writes:
> > me some advice as to whether or not "Programming Python" is useful,

Yes it is. If you are used to the O'Reilly style and are
happy with it PP is an excellent book. I'm currently jusat
over half way thru' and it has helped me a lot.

At work we have Python 1.3 (don't ask!) and at home I use
1.5.2. The vast majority of things work on both systems.

> > if the current edition is still current, if I should wait for the
> > "Learning Python", or if I should use some other resources.

I looked at LP but couldn't see a good reason to buy it at
the stage I'm now at - basic Tkinter and CGI programs
without recourse to the books.

> liked PP very much (and the difficult to find Internet Programming
> with Python, Watters et al, M&T books).

I had no problem getting the IPwithP book via Amazon :-)

I didn't find it too useful, and still wasn't clear how
much of the code applied to the standard distribution of
Python and how much was for the book only. It reminded me of
being at uni' where the lecturers insist on deriving
everything from first principles before telling you that
you can buy a book of tables... (Actually, come to think
of it I'm still not that clear on some of it!)
[ The socket examples are OK. ]

The general layout of the language reference part was
confusing to me. Sorry Guido, but I prefer PP....

YMMV of course.

> > I expect to come up to speed fairly quickly and I'm just looking for
> > those fundamental insights into OOP and Python that can build up the
> > kind of inuition and understanding one needs in order to "get
> > comfortable" connecting/creating the dots.

I'd say thats exactly where the PP book fits. Its not a hold
hands tutorial, neither is it a function by function reference
(you get that with the online documents!)

There are another 2 books on Python around and at least one
other on its way. Browse away.

Alan g.

--
=================================================
This post represents the views of the author
and does not necessarily accurately represent
the views of BT.

Curtis Yanko <cmyanko@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Isn't PP due for 2nd edition soon?

On www.ora.com in the 'Frankly speaking'-column they say, they will
publish PP after Python 2.0 comes out.

I wouldn't call this 'soon'.

--
marko schulz
"Die Welt ist gut, die Welt ist schlecht.
Ich seh' mehr als ich begreifen kann. Ich sehe in 3-D."
'3-D', Extrabreit

Fredrik Lundh <fredrik@pythonware.com> wrote:
> Rick Robino <see-sig@wavedivision.com> wrote:
>> I've been watching this group for some time and just now getting warm to
>> Python. Looking at source examples has been great, but for completeness'
>> sake I'd like to get more of the "why" maybe found in a book.

> Programming Python was written to given you the "why";
> it's as much about the process of programming (and how
> python affects that), as about the python language itself.
> and most of it will work just fine with 1.6. you'll find the
> necessary updates (up until 1.5.2) at:

> http://home.rmi.net/~lutz/

Sounds like I'll have to check this out no matter what, but I can
borrow it. I appreciate the confirmation of its currency.

> also note that Programming Python is *not* a tutorial
> (though you'll find one in an appendix), and it's *not*
> a reference manual. many PP critics seems to have
> missed that.

> but you may find Learning Python a better choice,
> though. see below.

A tutorial would be Ok, if (like the amazon description says) it's
a self guided one and doesn't stop at simple arrays at the end of
the book. All the posters to this thread seem to be quite happy
with Learning Python, so I will certainly get it.

>> Since Python is at 1.5.2 and people are talking about 2.0
>> as if it's around the corner.

> it's not. forget everything you've ever heard about it.
> it only exists as a few ideas in Guido's head, and he's
> about to embark on a "programming for the masses"
> project, so those ideas are likely to change...

> next stop is 1.6.

> probably early next year, or so. expect unicode, a
> more modular interpreter, string methods, and pro-
> bably lots of changes under the hood. hardly any
> major changes on the surface.

> if I'd were you, I'd stop worrying about the future,
> and learn to love what Python can offer you today!

I will. I just don't know how many times I've bought books
about a week before O'Reilly makes a press release about
the next edition (sendmail, esa, et al.) And then again,
I have books for some things that are too new to be much
use outside of experimentation because the product hasn't
penetrated yet (eg., ksh93). This time I thought I would
break down and ask ;)

> (btw, there are LOTS of books coming out now, so
> changing Python in a way that renders them useless
> would be very, very stupid... and if Guido suddenly
> loses his mind, I can guarantee that others will step
> in and maintain the 1.X series for another 30 years
> or so...)

>> I was wondering if anyone here could give me some advice as to whether or
>> not "Programming Python" is useful, if the current edition is still
>> current, if I should wait for the "Learning Python", or if I should use
>> some other resources.

> Learning Python is available, since long. if you're a new-
> comer to python, it's by far your best choice.

> the five-star rating at amazon isn't there by accident...

> btw, If you're going to buy it via amazon, consider
> supporting the Python Software Association:

> http://www.python.org/psa/bookstore/

"Your order has been submitted. Thank you for shopping at Amazon.com."

Done via the PSA link, filled out the survey too - cost was $23.99 plus
shipping ($6.00 + $1.95). Not too bad.

> (and this concludes my weekly broadcast to c.l.py ;-)

Thanks to everyone who replied. One of the reasons python appeals to
me are the people in this group. Even when they disagree its _so_
civil! And always intelligent.

Cheers all,

--Rick
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rick Robino rrobino [at] wavedivision.com

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:46:14 +0200, "Monika Göhmann"
<MGoehmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>"Learning Python" is just great!! I have only started reading but it already
>answered many of my newbie-questions. Some time ago I tried reading

I will agree with this, it seems to be a good book for beginners (both
at programming and Python). It was the first Python book that I
purchased, and would reccomend it for either a beginner or a more
experienced programmer who is new at Python.

>"Programming Python" but I find it quite hard to digest. LP seems much more
>readable for the beginner IMHO.

"Programming Python" seems to be more oriented to an experienced
programmer. I particularly liked the follow a simple application
approach from start to end. The book does jump around a bit however,
and I would only reccomend it for someone who is a somewhat
experienced programmer, who wants to learn Python. I do wish it came
with a more up to date CD however.



Sparrow (Alex) | /|\ brewing on the net
http://www.crosswinds.net/~prin_druid |

On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:41:39 +0100, Alan Gauld
<alan.gauld@gssec.bt.co.uk> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:


> At work we have Python 1.3 (don't ask!) and at home I use

Some system admin bought the book, and installed Python from the
CD, then forgot about it? <G>

--
> ============================================================== <
> wlfraed@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> wulfraed@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> ============================================================== <
> Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
> Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <

: > At work we have Python 1.3 (don't ask!) and at home I use

Where I work, the publicly available version is 1.2. I maintain a
private copy of 1.5.2 for my own use. As far as I'm aware, nobody
else in the company is using Python at all.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Will Ware email: wware[at]world[dot]std[dot]com
PGP fp (new key 07/15/97) 67683AE2 173FE781 A0D99636 0EAE6117

[Martijn Faassen]
> ...
> For some reason Pythoneers in this newsgroup (me included) like to talk
> about improving the language, though it's a very nice language already.
> Although some see this as a bad sign, I think the fairly intelligent
> discussion that *usually* is the result is quite interesting. Some
> discussions excepted. :)

It's not because we loathe Python? Hey -- you're right!

> Thanks to some newsgroup luminaries like Tim Peters (Tim, you're a
> newsgroup luminary now!),

It's better than "resident asshole", I guess.

> who seems to have programmed in just about any language in existence

There are at least 107 variants of BASIC I missed, and I only used REXX on
IBM mainframes <wink>.

> and can compare them all fairly to Python,

Oh, sure. That's easy! Say 5 nice things about each, then fairly conclude
that Python wins overall. It's like filling in a tax form, except there's
no penalty for cheating. "Perl is highly expressive, succinct, offers
exceptionally complete access to Unixisms, has the best-integrated regular
expressions in the world, and is very responsive to the ever-changing needs
of a fiercely loyal programming community. Python blah blah blah blah blah.
Overall, then, Python is the clear winner." Couldn't be any fairer than
that <wink>.

> the level of discussion remains fairly mature at most times. Though the
> latest Python 2 thread became a bit too emotional for my tastes in
> places.

Did someone actually write "if brains were dynamite, you couldn't blow your
nose", or did I just think it? Now let's see who thinks I thought it about
them <0.5 wink>.

> The *true* Python 2 things are the rare statements made by Guido on it
> (and rumors of his statements :).

Overall, Python2 is a real improvement over Python. That statement is
inoperative, though, if it turns out Python2 sucks.

for-all-we-know-now-it-will-turn-gc-on-its-head-and-throw-away-the-
live-objects-ly y'rs - tim

If you feel you have to buy a book on Python, then get "Learning Python". As
an experienced LumberJack, er Pythoner, I must say that Mark and his cohorts
writing style is much improved over "Programming Python". I've been at Python
for several years, written apps, com objects, lots of stuff. LP is a very
good, insightful and useful read.

Joe


Rick Robino wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I've been watching this group for some time and just now getting warm to
> Python. Looking at source examples has been great, but for completeness'
> sake I'd like to get more of the "why" maybe found in a book. Since Python
> is at 1.5.2 and people are talking about 2.0 as if it's around the corner,
> I was wondering if anyone here could give me some advice as to whether or
> not "Programming Python" is useful, if the current edition is still
> current, if I should wait for the "Learning Python", or if I should use
> some other resources.
>
> I expect to come up to speed fairly quickly and I'm just looking for
> those fundamental insights into OOP and Python that can build up the
> kind of inuition and understanding one needs in order to "get
> comfortable" connecting/creating the dots. Currently I only program
> small - medium programs in C and shell (Korn). Any sage pointers to
> resources?
>
> TIA,
>
> --Rick
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Rick Robino rrobino@wavedivision.com

Curtis Yanko <cmyanko@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> Isn't PP due for 2nd edition soon?

Frank Willison, O'Reilly's editor-in-chief, posted a
few words on this subject at:

http://www.oreilly.com/frank/python.html

An update will happen, but we're not yet sure about
the timing. Given the way publishing works, even if an
update was started today, it probably wouldn't show up
until early 2000 at best. Depending on 2.0's release,
that could make the update out of date in a year or less.

Given that, I doubt a 2nd edition will appear very soon.
OTOH, I may move up the schedule if 2.0 turns out to be
far away or mostly compatible with 1.6. I may also move
it up if I get bored with between-books slacking, but that
seems much less likely ;-).

For the time being, I maintain a list of recent Python
changes--which are mostly minor, in terms of the core
language--at my web site:

http://rmi.net/~lutz/errata-python-changes.html

Consider it a new appendix.

--Mark Lutz (http://rmi.net/~lutz)