Python Books for 2002
Tim Randolph
pleasant than discouraging to do some gap analysis. Here are some books
that I am looking forward to looking forward to:
*Thinking in Python* by Bruce Eckel. He says it will happen sooner or
later. (http://www.mindview.net/Python/ThinkingInPython.html )
*Design Patterns Python Companion* by Alex Martelli. I know he is working
on the Nutshell book, but Alex seems to have enough spare letters, words,
and sentences for two books. Besides, he has practically volunteered for
it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/python-list/message/128505
*Mastering Algorithms with Python* by Tim Peters. The catch here is that it
really should be in epistolatory form. This is of course to give Tim two or
three hundred more opportunities to come up with funny closing "ly yr's"
lines.
dare-to-dream-or-dream-to-dare-ly yr's,
Tim
Simon Brunning
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:30 AM
> *Design Patterns Python Companion* by Alex Martelli. I know he is working
> on the Nutshell book, but Alex seems to have enough spare letters, words,
> and sentences for two books.
Nutshell'?
'Python in great detail, with many excursions into useful and interesting
areas of computer science theory and practice' I can see, but 'in a
Nutshell'? Not exactly playing to his strengths...
Cheers,
Simon Brunning
TriSystems Ltd.
sbru...@trisystems.co.uk
P.S. Yes, I know that the Martellibot can be concise when he wants to be,
but concise good advice is /F's speciality.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. TriSystems Ltd. cannot
accept liability for statements made which are clearly the senders own.
Laura Lewin
You took the words right out of my mouth, that's for sure. All three have
been on my gap analysis list for a while. Here's the low down:
--Yes, Thinking in Python should happen sooner or later. Bruce is busy with
many projects but has said that he'd rather be working on the Python book
(he's self-publishing on mindview at this point).
--Alex and I have discussed design patterns (or OOP design). He certainly
has
that book in his head already, and it is the logical next step after In a
Nutshell.
--Tim can tell you that I've pestered him way too many times to count on
algorithms. (so dare to dream on that one.) It's possible we'd consider
algorithms by another author (we have) but it's a tougher sell if it's
anyone
but Tim. Oh, and if we ever were to do that book, we'd have to put a lot of
time into the schedule just for the ly y'rs lines. <smile>
Laura
LLe...@oreilly.com
>===== Original Message From "Tim Randolph" <timothy...@yahoo.com> =====
>Now that there are so many Python books out or in the pipeline it is more
>pleasant than discouraging to do some gap analysis. Here are some books
>that I am looking forward to looking forward to:
>
>*Thinking in Python* by Bruce Eckel. He says it will happen sooner or
>later. (http://www.mindview.net/Python/ThinkingInPython.html )
>
>*Design Patterns Python Companion* by Alex Martelli. I know he is working
>on the Nutshell book, but Alex seems to have enough spare letters, words,
Alex Martelli
news:mailman.986371925...@python.org...
> > From: Tim Randolph [SMTP:timothy...@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:30 AM
> > *Design Patterns Python Companion* by Alex Martelli. I know he is
working
> > on the Nutshell book, but Alex seems to have enough spare letters,
words,
> > and sentences for two books.
But I prefer event-driven code to multi-threading (maybe a legacy
from my Tcl past?-), so...
[Seriously, a "design patterns Python companion" would be a dream
project for me -- but, it _will_ have to wait!-)]
> Is it just me that finds it ironic that Alex is writing 'Python in a
> Nutshell'?
Nope, I can appreciate the irony myself:-). But then, my professional
life has been _full_ of ironies -- just consider I'm _highly_ verbally
oriented (VERY low visual orientation), yet early in my career I was
working on image processing, and for the last few years I've been
working for a software house which does three-D mechanical design SW!-)
> 'Python in great detail, with many excursions into useful and interesting
> areas of computer science theory and practice' I can see, but 'in a
> Nutshell'? Not exactly playing to his strengths...
Nolo contendere -- concision is NOT my strength. But, hey, I _do_
always appreciate a worthwhile challenge!-)
> P.S. Yes, I know that the Martellibot can be concise when he wants to be,
I just wish (that it sufficed for me to WANT to be concise to achieve it!-).
Rather, it IS hard work. Nevertheless, worthwhile...
> but concise good advice is /F's speciality.
He's definitely nonpareil at it!
Alex
Nicola Musatti
Simon Brunning wrote:
[...]
> Is it just me that finds it ironic that Alex is writing 'Python in a
> Nutshell'?
A couple of apter titles just came to my mind: "Encyclopaedia Pythonica"
and "The Art of Python Programming".
Best regards,
Nicola Musatti
Fredrik Lundh
> but concise good advice is /F's speciality.
unfortunately, the market for a 40 page "python in depth"
treatise seems to be rather limited.
Cheers /F
Andrew Kuchling
> Now that there are so many Python books out or in the pipeline it is more
> pleasant than discouraging to do some gap analysis. Here are some books
> that I am looking forward to looking forward to:
From my list:
* "Scientific Programming in Python", which would cover Numeric in detail,
and also cover SWIG, hand-written interfaces to Fortran/C libraries,
and reading various scientific data formats.
* "Text Processing in Python", covering regular expressions, parsing,
and XML processing. (Maybe in my copious free time, someday...)
* "Web Programming with Python". (Ditto...)
* Books on the Qt and GTk+ Python interfaces would also be good;
without such books, it seems unlikely that anything will displace
Tkinter as the standard Python GUI. (With such books, Tkinter is
still in the lead because of its portability, but they'd even things
out a bit.)
I hope to not see many more introductory Python books, because there
are enough of those; application- or domain-specific Python books are
more interesting.
Also, see Greg Wilson's list:
http://software-carpentry.codesourcery.com/extern/python-book-ideas.html
--amk
William Annis
Andrew Kuchling <akuc...@mems-exchange.org> writes:
> * "Text Processing in Python", covering regular expressions, parsing,
> and XML processing. (Maybe in my copious free time, someday...)
I just read "Data Munging With Perl" by David Cross from
Manning Publications. Reading it reminded me why I'm a Perl Apostate
but it covers a lot of *very* useful information. Such a book should
exist for Python, and could include the XML goo so very popular now.
--
William Annis - System Administrator - Biomedical Computing Group
an...@biostat.wisc.edu PGP ID:1024/FBF64031
Mi parolas Esperanton - La Internacian Lingvon www.esperanto.org
Doug Fort
<snip>
> Now that there are so many Python books out or in the pipeline it is more
> pleasant than discouraging to do some gap analysis. Here are some books
> that I am looking forward to looking forward to:
</snip>
After reading obscure comments on comp.lang.python I got a couple of books on
Haskell. Very interesting, but heavy going for an ancient procedural
programmer. There's a nice 'Charming Python' article on 'Functional
Programming in Python' by Dr. Mertz, but I think the subject could support a
full length book.
--
Doug Fort (doug...@downright.com)
Senior Meat Manager
Downright Software LLC
http://www.dougfort.net
Boudewijn Rempt
> * "Text Processing in Python", covering regular expressions, parsing,
> and XML processing. (Maybe in my copious free time, someday...)
I know that Lars Marius Garsholt has a great book on XML and Python
in preparation - should appear soon.
> * Books on the Qt and GTk+ Python interfaces would also be good;
> without such books, it seems unlikely that anything will displace
> Tkinter as the standard Python GUI. (With such books, Tkinter is
> still in the lead because of its portability, but they'd even things
> out a bit.)
I'm currently writing a book on PyQt for Opendocs - things are progressing
quite nicely, at the rate of about one chapter drafted every week. This
week it'll be either Theming or String Intricacies... With the release
of BlackAdder I feel that PyQt is quite portable. If I had access to a
Mac with OS X, I think I could get PyQt running there, too ;-).
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
Tim Randolph
"Laura Lewin" <Laur...@MailAndNews.com>:
.
> --Tim can tell you that I've pestered him way too many times to count on
> algorithms. (so dare to dream on that one.) It's possible we'd consider
> algorithms by another author (we have) but it's a tougher sell if it's
> anyone but Tim.
I think I have a plan to get Tim Peters to write your algorithms book:
1. Find a co-author. Algorithm books always have lots of authors anyway.
2. Have the co-author pose as a confused Python beginner and post questions
to this list. The questions should be along these lines: "I heard you can
write the Ford-Fulkerson method in Perl in three lines and it is really hard
in Python. Should I use Perl?"
3. Cut and Paste Tim's answers into the appropriate chapters of the book.
or-you-could-just-pay-him-a-million-dollars-ly yr's,
--Tim
Tim Peters
> ...
> *Mastering Algorithms with Python* by Tim Peters. The catch here
> is that it really should be in epistolatory form. This is of course
> to give Tim two or three hundred more opportunities to come up with
> funny closing "ly yr's" lines.
I don't even have time for *that* anymore. You can build your own book,
though, by digging thru the early days of the comp.lang.python archive, and
the mailing list before that. Most examples of efficient algorithm design
in Python boil down to this handy recipe, suitable for printing on a
practical (yet attractive) wallet card:
1. Use dicts heavily, in the obvious but only appropriate ways.
2. If your approach to the problem doesn't involve dicts, throw
out your approach, dream up another, and repeat step 2.
3. Go back to step 1.
ya-ok-so-it-doesn't-work-well-for-sorting-but-that's-why-sorting-is-
built-in-ly y'rs - tim
David Mertz
Doug Fort wrote:
> After reading obscure comments on comp.lang.python I got a couple of books on
> Haskell. Very interesting, but heavy going for an ancient procedural
> programmer. There's a nice 'Charming Python' article on 'Functional
> Programming in Python' by Dr. Mertz, but I think the subject could support a
> full length book.
I appreciate Doug Fort's kind mention of my article, and thought I might
provide a URL for readers. I had made this article available somewhat
prematurely on my own website (which readers are welcomed to look at for
a number of related artices: http://gnosis.cx/publish/tech_index.html),
but it has now appeared officially at IBM developerWorks now:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-prog.html
Unfortunately, IBM has attached a strangely meaningless description to
the column on the Linux Zone directory; so I fear the topic may be
overlooked by readers who would otherwise be interested.
Btw. A followup to this article has been written, and will hopefully
appear on IBM sooner rather than later (I'll give the secret URL to
anyone who emails me, but should not "officially" publish before IBM
does).
All the best, David...
Cameron Laird
Here's a hazard of concision: it abbreviates sometimes to
confusion. I think a "40 page 'python in depth' treatise"
would be *snapped up* at retail, even at $10 or 20 US. The
market to which Fredrik is apparently referring is that of
either the publishers or distributors, who find this sort
of innovation anathema.
--
Cameron Laird <cla...@NeoSoft.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
Cameron Laird
Tim Peters <tim...@email.msn.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>the mailing list before that. Most examples of efficient algorithm design
>in Python boil down to this handy recipe, suitable for printing on a
>practical (yet attractive) wallet card:
>
>1. Use dicts heavily, in the obvious but only appropriate ways.
>2. If your approach to the problem doesn't involve dicts, throw
> out your approach, dream up another, and repeat step 2.
>3. Go back to step 1.
>
>ya-ok-so-it-doesn't-work-well-for-sorting-but-that's-why-sorting-is-
> built-in-ly y'rs - tim
>
>
Sooooo true.
Also, lean on namespaces, to make it presentable.
Cameron Laird
Andrew Kuchling <akuc...@mems-exchange.org> wrote:
.
.
.
>* "Web Programming with Python". (Ditto...)
>
>* Books on the Qt and GTk+ Python interfaces would also be good;
> without such books, it seems unlikely that anything will displace
> Tkinter as the standard Python GUI. (With such books, Tkinter is
> still in the lead because of its portability, but they'd even things
> out a bit.)
mostly too much so.
>
>I hope to not see many more introductory Python books, because there
>are enough of those; application- or domain-specific Python books are
US publishers.
>more interesting.
>
>Also, see Greg Wilson's list:
>http://software-carpentry.codesourcery.com/extern/python-book-ideas.html
>
>--amk
Konrad Hinsen
> confusion. I think a "40 page 'python in depth' treatise"
> would be *snapped up* at retail, even at $10 or 20 US. The
> market to which Fredrik is apparently referring is that of
> either the publishers or distributors, who find this sort
> of innovation anathema.
Indeed. Everyone I know wants concise books, but publishers think that
only weight matters.
Oxford University Press has started a series of "Very Short Introductions"
which I like a lot, perhaps Fredrik could do one on Python. Unfortunately,
there's no computer-related volume in that series yet :-(
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen | E-Mail: hin...@cnrs-orleans.fr
Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.56.24
Rue Charles Sadron | Fax: +33-2.38.63.15.17
45071 Orleans Cedex 2 | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
France | Nederlands/Francais
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aahz Maruch
Cameron Laird <cla...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>
>Here's a hazard of concision: it abbreviates sometimes to confusion.
>I think a "40 page 'python in depth' treatise" would be *snapped up*
>at retail, even at $10 or 20 US. The market to which Fredrik is
>apparently referring is that of either the publishers or distributors,
>who find this sort of innovation anathema.
Ever since I saw _Borland C++ for Dummies_, I have concluded that
*nothing* is truly anathema to computer book publishers.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2001 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste." --Steve Jobs
Simon Brunning
> Indeed. Everyone I know wants concise books, but publishers think that
> only weight matters.
>
> Oxford University Press has started a series of "Very Short Introductions"
> which I like a lot, perhaps Fredrik could do one on Python. Unfortunately,
> there's no computer-related volume in that series yet :-(
*loads* of recommendations for the K&R C book, and that's only a couple of
hundred pages. (Oh, and a *huge* C vs. C++ flame-fest. Well, as close to a
flame-fest as c.l.py gets...)
Cheers,
Simon Brunning
TriSystems Ltd.
sbru...@trisystems.co.uk
Kemp Randy-W18971
Steve Holden
news:9ai305$so3$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article
<03BA7FF29A7003C0.58A7996F...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Cameron Laird <cla...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >Here's a hazard of concision: it abbreviates sometimes to confusion.
> >I think a "40 page 'python in depth' treatise" would be *snapped up*
> >at retail, even at $10 or 20 US. The market to which Fredrik is
> >apparently referring is that of either the publishers or distributors,
> >who find this sort of innovation anathema.
>
> Ever since I saw _Borland C++ for Dummies_, I have concluded that
> *nothing* is truly anathema to computer book publishers.
Yes, that is surely one of those books which should consist entirely of
blank pages. Nowadays, of course, it is considered elitist to claim not to
be a dummy. Next it will be "Nuclear Power Station Design for Dummies"
(although, remembering Three Mile Island, the operations staff clearly had
their own volume in that series).
regards
Steve
Bruce Sass
> So why not a Python for Dummies or a Perl for Idiots book?
Dummies and idiots should not be allowed to program,
so why encourage them. ;) <shrug>
Remco Gerlich
> So why not a Python for Dummies or a Perl for Idiots book?
Python users aren't dummies...
--
Remco Gerlich
Cameron Laird
Simon Brunning <SBru...@trisystems.co.uk> wrote:
.
.
.
>When I asked recently for advice as to a good introduction to C, I got
>*loads* of recommendations for the K&R C book, and that's only a couple of
>hundred pages. (Oh, and a *huge* C vs. C++ flame-fest. Well, as close to a
>flame-fest as c.l.py gets...)
.
.
1. I'll renew my periodic appeal for explanation
of what makes K&R so wonderful.
I think it is, too, but I have trouble being
analytic about it.
2. C++: it might be an OK language, but look at
the destruction it leaves in its wake.
Cameron Laird
>In article <03BA7FF29A7003C0.58A7996F...@lp.airnews.net>,
>Cameron Laird <cla...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>Here's a hazard of concision: it abbreviates sometimes to confusion.
>>I think a "40 page 'python in depth' treatise" would be *snapped up*
>>at retail, even at $10 or 20 US. The market to which Fredrik is
>>apparently referring is that of either the publishers or distributors,
>>who find this sort of innovation anathema.
>
>Ever since I saw _Borland C++ for Dummies_, I have concluded that
>*nothing* is truly anathema to computer book publishers.
.
.
Incidentally, as no one else has called me on this, I
need to make it explicit: my own posting abbreviated.
It would be easy to conclude from what I'd written that
I can only whine about publishers, and lump them all in
the same dark kettle. I do recognize several are inno-
vative, and a few courageous. I generalized.
Cameron Laird
Kemp Randy-W18971 <Randy....@motorola.com> wrote:
>So why not a Python for Dummies or a Perl for Idiots book?
.
.
I take it you're not familiar with
<URL: http://perl.plover.com/reviews/p54d.html >?
Kemp Randy-W18971
-----Original Message-----
From: cla...@starbase.neosoft.com [mailto:cla...@starbase.neosoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 2:09 PM
To: pytho...@python.org
Subject: Re: Python Books for 2002
Neil Hodgson
> Kemp Randy-W18971 <Randy....@motorola.com> wrote in comp.lang.python:
> > So why not a Python for Dummies or a Perl for Idiots book?
>
> Python users aren't dummies...
But we *are*. I am far too dumb to understand my Perl programs.
Neil
Aahz Maruch
Cameron Laird <cla...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>
>1. I'll renew my periodic appeal for explanation
> of what makes K&R so wonderful.
>
> I think it is, too, but I have trouble being
> analytic about it.
Because K&R sticks to the "what", wasting very little time on the "why"
or "how".
John J. Lee
> In article <mailman.986484978...@python.org>,
> Simon Brunning <SBru...@trisystems.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> 2. C++: it might be an OK language, but look at
> the destruction it leaves in its wake.
Explain?
John
Cameron Laird
.
.
I thought I was being cute--specifically, I was trying
lightly to inspire, "Look, even a discussion *about*
using C++ leaves c.l.p in shambles; imagine what an
actual implementation does to a project team."
I'm serious about that. Maybe it's wonderful stuff--in
fact, I've been fond of C++ at several times, and still
use it frequently--but anything (like children's
organized sports in the USA, certain religions, and
Kashmiri cartography) that inspires such violent clashes
makes me wonder whether a better approach isn't overdue.
The complementary point I also recognize, of course:
C++ is about such important things that it's *worth*
starting a fight.
Alex Martelli
news:11A279245FF128F8.7A0E8AF3...@lp.airnews.net...
[snip]
> fact, I've been fond of C++ at several times, and still
> use it frequently--but anything (like children's
> organized sports in the USA, certain religions, and
> Kashmiri cartography) that inspires such violent clashes
> makes me wonder whether a better approach isn't overdue.
I'm appalled at such flame-shy criteria. Probably the
most violent recurring clashes I have with my girlfriend
are about varieties of chocolate -- would this stance
imply that something *better than chocolate* is overdue?
(I think the part between the stars is an oxymoron...).
> The complementary point I also recognize, of course:
> C++ is about such important things that it's *worth*
> starting a fight.
Now THAT is better -- chocolate IS worth starting a
fight. (Would you BELIEVE that some bedraggled purists
don't UNDERSTAND white chocolate and claim it's heretic,
and on the other side some floopy milksops can't stand
90%-pure-cocoa superblack chocolate and claim its taste
is [you won't believe this!] _too harsh_...?! Ah, us
sensible moderate types [deliriously loving ALL varieties
of high-quality chocolate -- each in its proper place and
time, of course!] really lead a hard life...!).
Alex
Steve Holden
> "Cameron Laird" <cla...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote ...
> [snip]
> > fact, I've been fond of C++ at several times, and still
> > use it frequently--but anything (like children's
> > organized sports in the USA, certain religions, and
> > Kashmiri cartography) that inspires such violent clashes
> > makes me wonder whether a better approach isn't overdue.
>
> I'm appalled at such flame-shy criteria. Probably the
> most violent recurring clashes I have with my girlfriend
> are about varieties of chocolate -- would this stance
> imply that something *better than chocolate* is overdue?
> (I think the part between the stars is an oxymoron...).
>
you'll send some over here (although your later remarks imply
we would have to prise it from your cold, dead hands).
>
> > The complementary point I also recognize, of course:
> > C++ is about such important things that it's *worth*
> > starting a fight.
>
> Now THAT is better -- chocolate IS worth starting a
> fight. (Would you BELIEVE that some bedraggled purists
> don't UNDERSTAND white chocolate and claim it's heretic,
> and on the other side some floopy milksops can't stand
> 90%-pure-cocoa superblack chocolate and claim its taste
> is [you won't believe this!] _too harsh_...?! Ah, us
> sensible moderate types [deliriously loving ALL varieties
> of high-quality chocolate -- each in its proper place and
> time, of course!] really lead a hard life...!).
>
One thing I *don't* understand is how come the stuff Hershey and similar
companies sell is even allowed to be called chocolate. One of the nastier
surprises about moving to the USA was the discovery that many items sold
under the Cadbury label are actually manufactured under license by Hershey,
and all they seem to have in common is the name, the shape and the
packaging.
Look out for Cadbury's mini-eggs this Easter - they are imported, and hence
give me a chance at a taste of the real thing.
Oh, sorry, you were talking about *high-quality* chocolate. There's some
pretty good Belgian stuff in my local Whole Foods store.
what-a-pity-bathing-in-chocolate-doesn't-make-one-cleaner-as-well-as-better-
tasting-ly y'rs - steve
Fredrik Lundh
> on the other side some floopy milksops can't stand
> 90%-pure-cocoa superblack chocolate and claim its taste
> is [you won't believe this!] _too harsh_...?!
tell me about it...
steve wrote:
> One thing I *don't* understand is how come the stuff
> Hershey and similar companies sell is even allowed to be
> called chocolate
one of the few indisputably great things with joining the european
union was that they helped us get rid of something called "block
chocolate", made from vegetable fat and marginal amounts of cocoa
powder...
Cheers /F
Robin Dunn
news:gz6z6.6427$Xi1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I've always considered it the other way around. I'm too smart to use or
even to take the time to understand Perl, and would only use it if I were
really dumb.
--
Robin Dunn
Software Craftsman
ro...@AllDunn.com Java give you jitters?
http://wxPython.org Relax with wxPython!
Moshe Zadka
> some bedraggled purists don't UNDERSTAND white chocolate
There is no such thing as white chocolate. Your girlfriend has my
complete backing, for all the good it will do her <wink>
quoting-out-of-context-since-1995-ly y'rs, Z.
--
"I'll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I'm |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
looking for someplace else to grab power."|YODA: No...no... no. Quicker,
-- Wichert Akkerman (on debian-private)| easier, more seductive.
For public key, finger mos...@debian.org |http://www.{python,debian,gnu}.org
Michael Hudson
> "Aahz Maruch" <aa...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:9ai305$so3$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > Ever since I saw _Borland C++ for Dummies_, I have concluded that
> > *nothing* is truly anathema to computer book publishers.
>
> Yes, that is surely one of those books which should consist entirely of
> blank pages. Nowadays, of course, it is considered elitist to claim not to
> be a dummy. Next it will be "Nuclear Power Station Design for Dummies"
You can actually buy "Firewalls for Dummies" or "Computer Security for
Dummies" (or something like that) which isn't much better, IMHO.
Cheers,
M.
--
First of all, email me your AOL password as a security measure. You
may find that won't be able to connect to the 'net for a while. This
is normal. The next thing to do is turn your computer upside down
and shake it to reboot it. -- Darren Tucker, asr
Roy Smith
> "Steve Holden" <sho...@holdenweb.com> writes:
>
> > "Aahz Maruch" <aa...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:9ai305$so3$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > > Ever since I saw _Borland C++ for Dummies_, I have concluded that
> > > *nothing* is truly anathema to computer book publishers.
> >
> > Yes, that is surely one of those books which should consist entirely of
> > blank pages. Nowadays, of course, it is considered elitist to claim not to
> > be a dummy. Next it will be "Nuclear Power Station Design for Dummies"
>
> You can actually buy "Firewalls for Dummies" or "Computer Security for
> Dummies" (or something like that) which isn't much better, IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
> M.
I'm waiting for "Being an Elected Government Official for Dummies" :-)
Alex Martelli
news:m37l0vt...@atrus.jesus.cam.ac.uk...
[snip]
> You can actually buy "Firewalls for Dummies" or "Computer Security for
> Dummies" (or something like that) which isn't much better, IMHO.
Oh come on, y'all, lighten up a bit -- the 'for Dummies' marketing
ideas may be too cute, but some of the books themselves are pretty
good. Kantar's "Bridge for Dummies", for example, is an excellent
introductory text on contract bridge (the peculiar graphics of the
example hands, used instead of the usual way to typeset hands, is
the biggest objection I've seen raised to it -- Eddie Kantar, of course,
is a great player, many times world-champion, and one of the best
writers on the game of bridge). Even in the technical field, I used
to recommend a book in the 'for Dummies' series on the Win32 API
as the clearest introduction I knew to the subject (of course, some
undummy wiseguy will now quip that nobody BUT dummies could
ever be interested in the Win32 API -- but, hey, one can make pretty
interesting and smart amounts of money from a good competence in
them, you know:-).
Alex
bas.v...@home.nl
* I'm waiting for "Being an Elected Government Official for Dummies" :-)
Perhaps you should ask president Bush to lend you his copy ;-)))
Bas
--
Bas van Gils <bas.v...@home.nl>
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.
(Victor Hugo)
Konrad Hinsen
> 1. I'll renew my periodic appeal for explanation
> of what makes K&R so wonderful.
>
> I think it is, too, but I have trouble being
> analytic about it.
It's concise. It doesn't suppose readers are stupid, and therefore
doesn't explain on ten pages what a variable is. I wish there were
something similar for Python.
Konrad Hinsen
> One thing I *don't* understand is how come the stuff Hershey and similar
> companies sell is even allowed to be called chocolate. One of the nastier
> surprises about moving to the USA was the discovery that many items sold
Come to France - chocolatewise this is a highly civilized country.
No problem to find 85% pure chocolate even in an ordinary supermarket.
Michael Ströder
>
> One thing I *don't* understand is how come the stuff Hershey and similar
> companies sell is even allowed to be called chocolate. One of the nastier
> surprises about moving to the USA was the discovery that many items sold
> under the Cadbury label are actually manufactured under license by Hershey,
> and all they seem to have in common is the name, the shape and the
> packaging.
During my first trip to the U.S. I experienced that eating something
called "Lindt" had absolutely nothing to do with chocolate made by
the swiss company Lindt.
> Oh, sorry, you were talking about *high-quality* chocolate. There's some
> pretty good Belgian stuff in my local Whole Foods store.
I prefer the swiss stuff. :-)
But for preventing the U.S. being called completely
chocolate-ignorant I have to tell you about this Cafe in NYC which
is famous for their cake called "death by chocolate"...
Ciao, Michael.
Douglas Alan
> cla...@starbase.neosoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
> > 1. I'll renew my periodic appeal for explanation
> > of what makes K&R so wonderful.
> > I think it is, too, but I have trouble being
> > analytic about it.
> It's concise. It doesn't suppose readers are stupid, and therefore
> doesn't explain on ten pages what a variable is. I wish there were
> something similar for Python.
What's wrong with the Python Tutorial? It did the job for me.
|>oug
Alex Martelli
news:m366gdq...@chinon.cnrs-orleans.fr...
> "Steve Holden" <sho...@holdenweb.com> writes:
>
> > One thing I *don't* understand is how come the stuff Hershey and similar
> > companies sell is even allowed to be called chocolate. One of the
nastier
> > surprises about moving to the USA was the discovery that many items sold
>
> Come to France - chocolatewise this is a highly civilized country.
And not _only_ chocolatewise -- in bread AND wine AND cheese, as well
as in high-quality chocolate, I consider you guys the only ones on
a par with Italy...
> No problem to find 85% pure chocolate even in an ordinary supermarket.
Interesting! Here, you win -- most Italian supermarkets focus on
low-price, industrial-quality chocolate (_large_ hypermarkets are
fortunately an exception -- to some extent this goes for wine, cheese,
and bread, too).
Alex
Alex Martelli
news:3AD2D8C8...@stroeder.com...
[snip]
> > Oh, sorry, you were talking about *high-quality* chocolate. There's some
> > pretty good Belgian stuff in my local Whole Foods store.
>
> I prefer the swiss stuff. :-)
Looks to me like you guys never tasted the *real* thing -- Paris
and Bologna chocolatiers' output. The two cities where the idea
of making _solid_ chocolate was born in the 18th century -- still
leading the world in this respect... industrial-scale production
may be a great idea, but for really high-quality chocolate you
can't beat what artisans can make. Of course, it has drawbacks --
you generally have to walk into the respective workshops to get
their wares (you may get them courier-delivered if you know where
to order, but you ain't gonna find them at your supermarket).
A few of the classic chocolatiers do make their products available
(albeit not on 'industrial scale'!) along today's more usual
commercial channels -- my favourite is Bologna's "Majani", who
IMHO have struck a wise balance between high quality artisanal
worksmanship and the advantages of industrial production (lower
price, higher volume) -- they kept their downtown shop, right
next to the ruins of the Roman amphitheater, but they moved
production to a cheaper just-out-of-town location where dozens
of skilled workers (even with help from some selected machines;
any more of that, and we'll be moving into the 19th century!-)
labour at real classics like "Scorza" ("tree-bark" -- the oldest
surviving form of solid chocolate) and innovations like "Fiat"
(a creamy mix originally conceived by the then-leading Majani
family member for the launch of a new automobile firm up in
the Northwest -- a tad more than 100 years ago). They don't
export, but you can find their products in the best sweets
shops all over Italy...
[The movie 'Chocolat' is a must-see, by the way -- Jacqueline
Binoche AND Johnny Depp together already make it that -- I
regret that the idea of a Maja-rooted tradition of _solid_
chocolate is anti-historical, but the movie's still a delight].
Alex
Konrad Hinsen
> > It's concise. It doesn't suppose readers are stupid, and therefore
> > doesn't explain on ten pages what a variable is. I wish there were
> > something similar for Python.
>
> What's wrong with the Python Tutorial? It did the job for me.
For me as well, but it is written for people with a solid programming
background. Many people get stuck as early as section 2.1, where they
are expected to know what "EOF" stands for and which "file or device
is connected to standard input".
Konrad Hinsen
> > Come to France - chocolatewise this is a highly civilized country.
>
> And not _only_ chocolatewise -- in bread AND wine AND cheese, as well
I strongly disagree about bread, that's the only food I have to import.
Back to Python:
from Europe.France import chocolate, wine, cheese # comment out one of
from Europe.Italy import chocolate, wine, cheese # these lines
from Europe.Germany import bread
from Europe.Netherlands import vla
...
for food in dir():
if food[:2] != '_':
eat(food)
Carlos Alberto Reis Ribeiro
>During my first trip to the U.S. I experienced that eating something
>called "Lindt" had absolutely nothing to do with chocolate made by
>the swiss company Lindt.
We're way off topic anyway, but what about coffee? As a brazilian I was
surprised by the american coffee. After all, the USA buy the *very best*
coffee beans from Brazil and Colombia, and use it... to make that? It's
watered coffee, decaf - so it's not coffee after all :-) We're used to
strong coffee here (I think we're on par with the Italians). Also the
bread... I could not find good bread in any of the places where I gone
(there are some good, specialty bakers in my home city, so I'm used to good
bread too :-).
For chocolate, the quality in Brazil varies widely, from the
"chocolate-flavored" drinks to the very best (made traditionally by
families that came from Europe at the turn of the 20th century).
p.s. If you come to Brazil, go to a *real* coffee shop, please. There are
also *lots* of places with terrible coffee around, specially at Rio de
Janeiro <running-for-cover>.
Carlos Ribeiro
Carlos Alberto Reis Ribeiro
>Douglas Alan <nes...@mit.edu> writes:
>
> > > It's concise. It doesn't suppose readers are stupid, and therefore
> > > doesn't explain on ten pages what a variable is. I wish there were
> > > something similar for Python.
> >
> > What's wrong with the Python Tutorial? It did the job for me.
>
>For me as well, but it is written for people with a solid programming
>background. Many people get stuck as early as section 2.1, where they
>are expected to know what "EOF" stands for and which "file or device
>is connected to standard input".
So, what is needed is:
- a book that doest not suppose that readers are stupid, BUT
- does not go so far as assuming that they already know everything.
This is a very hard balance to achieve... No surprise that few books ever
achieve it.
Carlos Ribeiro
Scherer, Bill
Please don't disparage all of American chocolates until you've tried
Scharffen-Berger.
Made in California, I can get it locally (New York), and it's also
available on-line direct from the manufacturer.
- Bill
Simon Brunning
> from Europe.France import chocolate, wine, cheese # comment out one of
> from Europe.Italy import chocolate, wine, cheese # these lines
> from Europe.Germany import bread
> from Europe.Netherlands import vla
> for food in dir():
> if food[:2] != '_':
> eat(food)
Simon Brunning
TriSystems Ltd.
sbru...@trisystems.co.uk
P.S. Oh yes, and:
from Europe.England import BSE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. TriSystems Ltd. cannot
accept liability for statements made which are clearly the senders own.
Michael Hudson
> > From: Konrad Hinsen [SMTP:hin...@cnrs-orleans.fr]
> > from Europe.France import chocolate, wine, cheese # comment out one of
> > from Europe.Italy import chocolate, wine, cheese # these lines
> > from Europe.Germany import bread
> > from Europe.Netherlands import vla
>
> from Europe.England import beer
But:
from Europe.LowCountries import Lager
I've just spent a few days in Amsterdam, and I'm not to be able to
drink the UK's excuse for lager for some time. Mmm, Amstel Bock.
> The information in this email is confidential ...
This seems more ironic than normal.
Cheers,
M.
--
Just getting something to work usually means writing reams of code
fast, like a Stephen King novel, but making it maintainable and
high-quality code that really expresses the ideas well, is like
writing poetry. Art is taking away. -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
Aahz Maruch
There's nothing wrong with the Tutorial, but one of the wonderful things
about K&R is that it *also* serves as a reference manual, something that
the Python Tutorial isn't so good at. OTOH, IMO Python is significantly
larger than C, so it's probably not possible to have a single, small
combined reference/tutorial.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2001 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
Steven D. Majewski
On 10 Apr 2001, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> cla...@starbase.neosoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
>
> > 1. I'll renew my periodic appeal for explanation
> > of what makes K&R so wonderful.
> >
> > I think it is, too, but I have trouble being
> > analytic about it.
>
> It's concise. It doesn't suppose readers are stupid, and therefore
> doesn't explain on ten pages what a variable is. I wish there were
> something similar for Python.
Concise!
Did someone in this thread mention:
<http://philip.greenspun.com/wtr/dead-trees/story.html>
yet?
You should read his theory on why computer books are (mostly) so bad.
(And why they are marketed "by the pound" ! )
-- Steve Majewski
Moshe Zadka
> Back to Python:
>
> from Europe.France import chocolate, wine, cheese # comment out one of
> from Europe.Italy import chocolate, wine, cheese # these lines
> from Europe.Germany import bread
> from Europe.Netherlands import vla
> ...
>
> for food in dir():
> if food[:2] != '_':
> eat(food)
Fatso! ;-)
You meant, if food[:1] != '_', otherwise you'd eat people's private
foods too...
But what I would do is:
d = {}
exec '''\
from Europe.France import chocolate, wine, cheese # comment out one of
from Europe.Italy import chocolate, wine, cheese # these lines
from Europe.Germany import bread
from Europe.Netherlands import vla
...
''' in d, d
for food in d.values():
eat(food)
Andrew Dalke
> for food in dir():
> if food[:2] != '_':
> eat(food)
Moshe:
>You meant, if food[:1] != '_', otherwise you'd eat people's private
>foods too...
Though food.startswith("__") would be the better solution since
making the mistake of a single _ would not have been as caloric.
Andrew
da...@acm.org
Ben Wolfson
<ale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Konrad Hinsen" <hin...@cnrs-orleans.fr> wrote in message
> news:m366gdq...@chinon.cnrs-orleans.fr...
>>
>> Come to France - chocolatewise this is a highly civilized country.
>
> And not _only_ chocolatewise -- in bread AND wine AND cheese, as well as
> in high-quality chocolate, I consider you guys the only ones on a par
> with Italy...
What? Everyone knows that India is on par with your rather Eurocentric,
if I may say so, selections, at least in bread.
--
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
The women come and go,
Speaking of the Regis Philbin Show
-- Joe Frank
Daniel Klein
>cla...@starbase.neosoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
>
>> 1. I'll renew my periodic appeal for explanation
>> of what makes K&R so wonderful.
>>
>> I think it is, too, but I have trouble being
>> analytic about it.
>
>It's concise. It doesn't suppose readers are stupid, and therefore
>doesn't explain on ten pages what a variable is. I wish there were
>something similar for Python.
I see nobody has metioned 'Python Essential Reference' by David Beazley.
Dave LeBlanc
"Trader Joe's" might like to know that they sell 78% dark chocolate
from S. America at rediculously low prices. I think it was < $3.00/lb
bar.
Dave LeBlanc
Grant Griffin
>
>In article <lcpueln...@gaffa.mit.edu>,
>Douglas Alan <nes...@mit.edu> wrote:
>>Konrad Hinsen <hin...@cnrs-orleans.fr> writes:
>>> cla...@starbase.neosoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I'll renew my periodic appeal for explanation
>>>> of what makes K&R so wonderful.
IMHO, one of the very most wonderfulest things of all about it is something
quite mundane: its index. It's truly a miracle. Whatever question about C you
have, you can almost always find an index entry for it starting with the first
word you think of that it might be indexed under. This requires, of course,
that the index be "redundant"--which is something that most index writers don't
bother to do. (Or maybe they think they _shouldn't_ do: how many times have you
seen an index entry that says, "See xxx"? Argh!)
On the other end of that spectrum, how many books have you looked at where the
first word you looked for wasn't in the index--but then turned out to be the
name of _an entire section of the book_?!
>>>> I think it is, too, but I have trouble being
>>>> analytic about it.
It is simply, clearly, and beautifully written. Everything is done by example.
The examples are "real", not contrived. Information is presented step-by-step.
Each step builds on the last.
>>>
>>> It's concise. It doesn't suppose readers are stupid, and therefore
>>> doesn't explain on ten pages what a variable is. I wish there were
>>> something similar for Python.
>>
>>What's wrong with the Python Tutorial? It did the job for me.
I like it too, but it was pretty easy given that I already knew C/C++ and Perl.
I'm not so sure it would be the thing if one were a complete programming novice,
but then again, I'm not so sure it's directed at them, either.
>There's nothing wrong with the Tutorial, but one of the wonderful things
>about K&R is that it *also* serves as a reference manual, something that
>the Python Tutorial isn't so good at.
I have a more general gripe with the Python docs: that you have to go through a
process of learning where things are. (And after more than a year, I'm still
learning...) I think the individual docs themselves are well written, but I
think the overall way they are organized makes them pretty hard to use.
(Perhaps this is a historical thing: maybe an accretion problem. So perhaps
they should be totally reorganized.)
For example, when I was new to Python, I looked for an explantion of "print" in
the "built-in functions" section. However, it turns out that print is a
_statement_ (which is a fine point that's lost on beginners...), and, as such, a
complete description of "print" appears only in the reference manual. Well,
obviously.
This illustrates the problem: the docs are organized in a way that assumes that
one already has a fairly advanced understanding of what the docs are there to
tell you.
The "HTMLHelp" index provided with ActiveState's distribution helps some, but
it's somewhat half-baked. (Though to be fair, it's worth a whole lot more than
I paid for it.)
In that vein, one significant advantage that Python books have over online docs
is that they have much better indices. (Also, you can take 'em into the potty.)
>OTOH, IMO Python is significantly
>larger than C, so it's probably not possible to have a single, small
>combined reference/tutorial.
BTW, doesn't K&R provide the C reference manual as an appendix? <wink>
But your point is taken: I rarely use that, instead I use the main part of the
book as the "reference manual". (After I look something up in the index, of
course.)
finding-information-is-the-first-step-to-becomming
-informed-ly y'rs,
=g2
_____________________________________________________________________
Grant R. Griffin g...@dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation http://www.iowegian.com
Jan Dries
Alex Martelli wrote:
> [The movie 'Chocolat' is a must-see, by the way -- Jacqueline
> Binoche AND Johnny Depp together already make it that -- ...
Make that "Juliette Binoche"!
Jan
Alex Martelli
news:mailman.986906892...@python.org...
[snip]
> We're way off topic anyway, but what about coffee? As a brazilian I was
> surprised by the american coffee. After all, the USA buy the *very best*
> coffee beans from Brazil and Colombia, and use it... to make that? It's
> watered coffee, decaf - so it's not coffee after all :-) We're used to
> strong coffee here (I think we're on par with the Italians). Also the
> bread... I could not find good bread in any of the places where I gone
Actually, I know where to get good bread, good hand-made chocolate,
good local wine, AND a good espresso, in [4+ different places in] San
Francisco -- pity each product's price would be an order of magnitude
more than here in Italy, but, apart from that, I do sometimes wonder
if SF _is_ in the US (the fact that each of the places I have in mind is
walking distance from a street whose nametags read "viale Cristoforo
Colombo", and is entirely decorated in red-white-and-green flags, may
of course be entirely coincidental -- I've been in many other just-as-
Italian-looking quarters in _other_ US cities where the coffee's so light
you could wash your hands clean with it....).
Alex
[P.S: the very idea of coffee being OT on a comp.* group is, I think,
an oxymoron -- don't _all_ we nerds survive mostly on caffeine...?]
Ben Wolfson
wrote:
> Any of you who happen to be near a cheap gourmet grocery chain called
> "Trader Joe's" might like to know that they sell 78% dark chocolate from
> S. America at rediculously low prices. I think it was < $3.00/lb bar.
Trader Joe's is undergoing an identity crisis. It used to be a store
where the stock could change unexpectedly month to month, based on
whatever happened to be handy, but now it's becoming a more
traditional-style store. Still lots of good thing s to be had there,
though.
Phil Martel
Grant Griffin <not....@seebelow.org> wrote in message
news:9avhk...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <9av8vs$68g$1...@panix3.panix.com>, aa...@panix.com says...
> >
> >In article <lcpueln...@gaffa.mit.edu>,
> >Douglas Alan <nes...@mit.edu> wrote:
> >>Konrad Hinsen <hin...@cnrs-orleans.fr> writes:
> >>> cla...@starbase.neosoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
> >>>>
> In that vein, one significant advantage that Python books have over online
docs
> is that they have much better indices. (Also, you can take 'em into the
potty.)
>
>
> =g2
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Grant R. Griffin g...@dspguru.com
> Publisher of dspGuru http://www.dspguru.com
> Iowegian International Corporation http://www.iowegian.com
>
Best wishes,
--Phil Martel
Aahz Maruch
In article <9avhk...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Grant Griffin <not....@seebelow.org> wrote:
>
>I have a more general gripe with the Python docs: that you have to go
>through a process of learning where things are. (And after more than
>a year, I'm still learning...) I think the individual docs themselves
>are well written, but I think the overall way they are organized makes
>them pretty hard to use. (Perhaps this is a historical thing: maybe an
>accretion problem. So perhaps they should be totally reorganized.)
>
>For example, when I was new to Python, I looked for an explantion of
>"print" in the "built-in functions" section. However, it turns out
>that print is a _statement_ (which is a fine point that's lost on
>beginners...), and, as such, a complete description of "print" appears
>only in the reference manual. Well, obviously.
Yup. I've been complaining about this to Fred Drake for some time, but
we haven't hit a spot where both of us have the time/energy to really
work on this. It's currently my ball.
Andrew Dalke
Phil Martel wrote:
>Grant Griffin wrote:
>> In that vein, one significant advantage that Python books
>> have over online docs is that they have much better indices.
>> (Also, you can take 'em into the potty.)
>One word: "laptop"
Two more words: "wireless ethernet"
Andrew
da...@acm.org
Aahz Maruch
Alex Martelli <ale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[P.S: the very idea of coffee being OT on a comp.* group is, I think,
>an oxymoron -- don't _all_ we nerds survive mostly on caffeine...?]
Nope. I use adrenaline instead.
Tim Peters
> Come to France - chocolatewise this is a highly civilized country.
[Alex Martelli]
> And not _only_ chocolatewise -- in bread AND wine AND cheese, as well
> as in high-quality chocolate, I consider you guys the only ones on a
> par with Italy...
[Ben Wolfson]
> What? Everyone knows that India is on par with your rather
> Eurocentric, if I may say so, selections, at least in bread.
On the chance that these selections aren't so much Eurocentric as
Anglophobic, I'd like to remind everyone that America Leads the World in both
Twinkies and Coke. Although I have to admit that Mexican Coke is better.
But *nobody* beats my homeland's Twinkies!
who-needs-lindt-when-you've-got-hostess-ly y'rs - tim
Greg Ewing
Ethernet connection over hydrophones down
the sewer pipes?
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
To get my email address, please visit my web page:
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg
Greg Ewing
>
> from Europe.England import beer
>
> > for food in dir():
> > if food[:2] != '_':
> > eat(food)
But beer has to be drunk, not eaten, so you'll
need
for comestible in dir():
if comestible[:2] != '_':
comestible.consume()
Ben Wolfson
<gr...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Simon Brunning wrote:
>>
>> from Europe.England import beer
>>
>> > for food in dir():
>> > if food[:2] != '_':
>> > eat(food)
>
> But beer has to be drunk, not eaten, so you'll need
>
> for comestible in dir():
> if comestible[:2] != '_':
> comestible.consume()
But this is bad design, since the comestible doesn't consume anything,
but is consumed by an eater. Something like
from Animals.Mammals import Human
hungry_person = Human()
So that the hungry_person can .consume() the comestibles.
Besides, the OED seems to be telling me (I can't tell because the web
site's design is confusing) that "comestible" refers only to things one
eats anyway.
Barry A. Warsaw
>>>>> "TP" == Tim Peters <tim...@home.com> writes:
TP> On the chance that these selections aren't so much Eurocentric
TP> as Anglophobic, I'd like to remind everyone that America Leads
TP> the World in both Twinkies and Coke. Although I have to admit
TP> that Mexican Coke is better. But *nobody* beats my homeland's
TP> Twinkies!
Or our Mountain Dew. Or our Moon Pies. Hmm, Dew and Pies... yum!
contains-chocolate-if-appearance-indicates-ly y'rs,
-Barry
Alex Martelli
news:mailman.986955798...@python.org...
> [Konrad Hinsen]
> > Come to France - chocolatewise this is a highly civilized country.
>
> [Alex Martelli]
> > And not _only_ chocolatewise -- in bread AND wine AND cheese, as well
> > as in high-quality chocolate, I consider you guys the only ones on a
> > par with Italy...
>
> [Ben Wolfson]
> > What? Everyone knows that India is on par with your rather
> > Eurocentric, if I may say so, selections, at least in bread.
>
> On the chance that these selections aren't so much Eurocentric as
> Anglophobic, I'd like to remind everyone that America Leads the World in
both
> Twinkies and Coke. Although I have to admit that Mexican Coke is better.
Dunno 'bout Mexican Coke, but the US sure leads, in my book, on
such staples as steaks, corn chips (particularly blue-corn ones),
and tuna-salad sandwiches (for reasons that escape me, that
insipid bread of yours seems _ideal_ to house a tuna-salad
filling). Oh, and micro-brews -- I'm not much of a beer expert,
and I'll generally take a Tuborg or a Carlsberg Elephant over
any other choice (Denmark really leads the world in this
respect, I feel), but I must admit that some of your cities
(at least Portland, Oregon) have an incredible, seemingly
endless variety of diverse and very interesting micro-breweries.
But your truly unchallengeable leadership is in *cocktails*. I
have to patronize the costliest, poshiest downtown bars to get
*decent* martini cocktails around here -- most US cocktail bars
I know can do _at least_ as well for less than half the cost...!
Alex
Grant Griffin
>
>"Neil Hodgson" <ne...@scintilla.org> wrote in message
>news:gz6z6.6427$Xi1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Remco Gerlich:
>> > Kemp Randy-W18971 <Randy....@motorola.com> wrote in comp.lang.python:
>> > > So why not a Python for Dummies or a Perl for Idiots book?
>> >
>> > Python users aren't dummies...
>>
>> But we *are*. I am far too dumb to understand my Perl programs.
Me too! That's precisely why I switched.
But I'm pretty sure Neil's at least smarter than me. I've looked at the
Scintilla source code (thanks, Neil!), and he's evidently able to keep track of
several thousand lines of code in the same file. I never could do that.
>>
>
>I've always considered it the other way around. I'm too smart
(and modest, too <wink>)
BTW, thanks for wxPython, Robin--it's a beaut!
>to use or
>even to take the time to understand Perl, and would only use it if I were
>really dumb.
When I learned Perl, I was no dumber than I was when I learned Python; I was
merely "uninformed" because I didn't _know_ about Python. I had _heard_ of it,
but I didn't know that it was pretty-much like Perl, except highly readable.
Perl has a tremendous marketing advantage because of its widespread use as a CGI
gizmo (which is how I ran onto it.) Anyway, it took me about ten seconds to
decide to switch, once I understood the facts.
Perl has its fans--and always will--but if The Uninitiated were presented with
both Perl and Python, side-by-side, I bet Python would win almost every time.
tell-ten-of-your-friends!-ly y'rs,
Carlos Ribeiro
>Dunno 'bout Mexican Coke, but the US sure leads, in my book, on
>such staples as steaks, corn chips (particularly blue-corn ones),
>and tuna-salad sandwiches (for reasons that escape me, that
>insipid bread of yours seems _ideal_ to house a tuna-salad
>filling).
Many travellers that come to Brazil are surprised about Brazil's steaks
too. We have a variety here that we call "rodizio" where you are served as
much meat as you can take - grilled, sticks, barbecue, you call it -
several varieties are served on your table. No limit, fixed price - less
than US$ 8.00 in most cities (except Sao Paulo, everything is expensive in
SP). At work I'm used to guest consultants, mainly from the US, and it is
really funny to see them at lunch in a place like this - some of them eat
way too much to actually work in the afternoon.
BTW there are already some brazilian "rodizios" in NY and other cities
worldwide, but the price is *much* more expensive than in Brazil.
Carlos Ribeiro
Dave Brueck
> too. We have a variety here that we call "rodizio" where you are served as
> much meat as you can take - grilled, sticks, barbecue, you call it -
> several varieties are served on your table. No limit, fixed price - less
> than US$ 8.00 in most cities (except Sao Paulo, everything is expensive in
> SP). At work I'm used to guest consultants, mainly from the US, and it is
> really funny to see them at lunch in a place like this - some of them eat
> way too much to actually work in the afternoon.
>
> BTW there are already some brazilian "rodizios" in NY and other cities
> worldwide, but the price is *much* more expensive than in Brazil.
Yeah, here in the US where I live these rodizios are very popular - and
overpriced as you pointed out - US$ 25.00 is the minimum. Waiters (sorry,
don't know their official title) wander around the room with skewers of meat
and you just accept or decline each one; they usually have 10 to 15
different delicious varieties. Unfortunately many people here now think that
_all_ Brazilian cuisine is one giant barbecue. <g>
-Dave
jason-dated-8e...@mastaler.com
> Or our Mountain Dew. Or our Moon Pies. Hmm, Dew and Pies... yum!
Mountain Dew and Moon Pies? You must be a yankee or something.
The proper combo is RC Cola and Moon Pies. ;-)
Barry A. Warsaw
>> Or our Mountain Dew. Or our Moon Pies. Hmm, Dew and
>> Pies... yum!
jason> Mountain Dew and Moon Pies? You must be a yankee or
jason> something. The proper combo is RC Cola and Moon Pies. ;-)
But of course! Yeh jes kain't git that RC Cola everwhere, and in a
pinch a coupla liters of MD will have to do.
Ben Wolfson
<tim...@home.com> wrote:
Venezuala, of course, has everyone beat on the ice cream front:
http://4icecream.4anything.com/network-frame/0,1855,4190-10885,00.html
It is my dream someday to eat there.
Greg Ewing
>
> from Animals.Mammals import Human
>
> hungry_person = Human()
>
> So that the hungry_person can .consume() the comestibles.
But the method of consumption depends on the class
of the substance, so dispatching on it seems
appropriate. Perhaps
substance.be_consumed_by(person)
Then in the future one could define additional
classes of substance such as Cocaine and Heroin
and the code will continue to work.
Emile van Sebille
person.be_consumed_by(substance)
--
Emile van Sebille
em...@fenx.com
---------
"Greg Ewing" <gr...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3AD50BB3...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz...
Alex Martelli
news:3AD50BB3...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz...
> >
> > from Animals.Mammals import Human
> >
> > hungry_person = Human()
> >
> > So that the hungry_person can .consume() the comestibles.
>
> But the method of consumption depends on the class
> of the substance, so dispatching on it seems
> appropriate. Perhaps
>
> substance.be_consumed_by(person)
We really need multiple-dispatch, because many
substances may be differently consumed by instances
of different concrete subclasses of Animal -- e.g.,
milk will be lapped up from a saucer by an instance
of Cat, but an instance of Human is unlikely to
.consume() it that way.
As is all too usual when multiple-dispatch is
really what's underlying our efforts (very often
the details of interactions between objects X
and Y depends on the concrete-classes of both
objects!), no single-dispatch solution is fully,
100% satisfactory.
Are we more likely to add different concrete
subclasses of Consumable in the future, or different
concrete subclasses of Consumer? I suspect the
former is more likely -- new kinds of chewables,
drinkables, smokeables, etc, are likelier to get
developed and marketed than new kinds of Animal.
So, we should assume that a Substance (Consumable)
"knows about" all of its possible Consumer kinds
when the code for its methods is written, rather
than vice-versa. Of course we should still factor
common code out to appropriate mixin classes, but
the dispatch on Substance still looks like the right
architecture.
Note that the architectural choice is determined
by a survey of likely foreseen use-cases, not by
vague aesthetic considerations:-).
Our predictions can be wrong. If a starship lands
tomorrow, full of alien life-forms that are
interested in .consume()'ing our varieties of
Substance, we'll need to refactor... oh well!
Alex
Garry Hodgson
>
> "Konrad Hinsen" <hin...@cnrs-orleans.fr> wrote in message
> news:m366gdq...@chinon.cnrs-orleans.fr...
> > "Steve Holden" <sho...@holdenweb.com> writes:
> >
> > > One thing I *don't* understand is how come the stuff Hershey and similar
> > > companies sell is even allowed to be called chocolate. One of the
> nastier
> > > surprises about moving to the USA was the discovery that many items sold
> >
> > Come to France - chocolatewise this is a highly civilized country.
>
> as in high-quality chocolate, I consider you guys the only ones on
> a par with Italy...
yeah, but their Velveeta really sucks.
--
Garry Hodgson sometimes we ride on your horses
Senior Hacker sometimes we walk alone
Software Innovation Services sometimes the songs that we hear
AT&T Labs are just songs of our own
ga...@sage.att.com
Rainer Deyke
news:3AD50BB3...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz...
> of the substance, so dispatching on it seems
> appropriate. Perhaps
>
> substance.be_consumed_by(person)
Wrong!
fire = Fire()
substance.be_consumed_by(fire) # will fail
--
Rainer Deyke (ro...@rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware computer games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor
"Jürgen A. Erhard"
Cameron> 2. C++: it might be an OK language, but look at
Cameron> the destruction it leaves in its wake.
So it's more a K.O. language, wouldn't you say? ;-)
Bye, J
--
Jürgen A. Erhard juergen...@gmx.net phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
My WebHome: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard
"It might look like I'm doing nothing, but at the cellular level
I'm really quite busy."
Mats Wichmann
>[cc'd to Fred Drake]
>
>In article <9avhk...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>Grant Griffin <not....@seebelow.org> wrote:
>>
>>I have a more general gripe with the Python docs: that you have to go
>>through a process of learning where things are. (And after more than
>>a year, I'm still learning...) I think the individual docs themselves
>>are well written, but I think the overall way they are organized makes
>>them pretty hard to use. (Perhaps this is a historical thing: maybe an
>>accretion problem. So perhaps they should be totally reorganized.)
>>
>>For example, when I was new to Python, I looked for an explantion of
>>"print" in the "built-in functions" section. However, it turns out
>>that print is a _statement_ (which is a fine point that's lost on
>>beginners...), and, as such, a complete description of "print" appears
>>only in the reference manual. Well, obviously.
>
>Yup. I've been complaining about this to Fred Drake for some time, but
>we haven't hit a spot where both of us have the time/energy to really
>work on this. It's currently my ball.
Mmm, yes, this had me going for a while, too. My favorite, I think,
was the set of eval/exec/execfile, which seem to go together but
aren't that way in the reference since two are functions and one is a
statement.
Mats Wichmann
(Anti-spam stuff: to reply remove the "xyz" from the
address xyz...@laplaza.org. Not that it helps much...)
Mats Wichmann
<sho...@holdenweb.com> wrote:
>> Ever since I saw _Borland C++ for Dummies_, I have concluded that
>> *nothing* is truly anathema to computer book publishers.
>
>Yes, that is surely one of those books which should consist entirely of
>blank pages. Nowadays, of course, it is considered elitist to claim not to
>be a dummy. Next it will be "Nuclear Power Station Design for Dummies"
>(although, remembering Three Mile Island, the operations staff clearly had
>their own volume in that series).
Sigh. Me dear ol' Dad is a somewhat-retired physics professor who has
had many a student that later headed in the direction Steve alludes
to. His commentary on the qualifications of those students has never
been encouraging...
Jason Cunliffe
> So, what is needed is:
>
> - a book that doest not suppose that readers are stupid, BUT
> - does not go so far as assuming that they already know everything.
>
> This is a very hard balance to achieve... No surprise that few books ever
> achieve it.
I recommend that of all the Python books thus far, 'Core Python Programming'
by Wesley Chun has this balance.
ISBN 0-13-026036-3
-- Jason
___________________________________________________________
Jason CUNLIFFE = NOMADICS['Interactive Art and Technology']
John Schmitt
I'd love to hear them!
You're making me hungry.
John
Greg Ewing
>
> Are we more likely to add different concrete
> subclasses of Consumable in the future, or different
> concrete subclasses of Consumer? I suspect the
> former is more likely
With genetic engineering being the latest growth
industry, I'm not sure that's true. Although I expect
that any new models of cow, etc. will have a backwards
compatible food-consumption protocol.