Great New Book
Jason Cunliffe
prominent stack of an excellent new book:
'Core Python Programming' by Wesley Chun.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0130260363/o/qid=978061249/sr=8-1/ref
=aps_sr_b_1_3/002-1140792-5636848
IMHO This is #1 the best written book on Python I have yet set eyes on.
Wesley Chun has a deceptively clear prose style, and strikes a clean balance
between the obvious but essential, yet carefully elucidating famous pythonic
topics.
I really thingk this is the most suitable entry text for Python which
presently exists. It is writen with grace and skill by an author who
obviously wnows his topic. It lays a great foundation.
I truly look forwards to any more volumes he may produce in this series.
The only shame is not the author's fault - it is the still crazy high price
$45 and thick paper which bulks the 760pages to 2.5" thick.
I wish american publishers would stop this telphone book web publishing
madness & follow the example set by Korean technical books I have seen -
thin paper, larger comfortable format, plenty of color and excellent step by
step illustrations.
- Jason
___________________________________________________________
Jason CUNLIFFE = NOMADICS['Interactive Art and Technology']
Cameron Laird
Jason Cunliffe <jas...@nomadicsltd.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>IMHO This is #1 the best written book on Python I have yet set eyes on.
>Wesley Chun has a deceptively clear prose style, and strikes a clean balance
>between the obvious but essential, yet carefully elucidating famous pythonic
>topics.
.
.
Is "deceptively clear" a good thing?
You forgot to mention that the author is a generous
guy (at least on occasion) and a fan of Alan Parsons.
In any case, yes, the book deserves consideration.
Myself, I'm still mulling over how it compares with
the alternatives; I think several of the leading Python
books each have a place.
--
Cameron Laird <cla...@NeoSoft.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
Roy Smith
> Is "deceptively clear" a good thing?
I havn't seen the book, but I would interpret "deceptively clear" to
mean, "He makes it sound so simple, you don't even realize how much
stuff you're learning when you read it".
A rare quality in technical authors.
Aahz Maruch
>$45 and thick paper which bulks the 760pages to 2.5" thick.
Hmmm.... I don't know how thick the pages actually are, but I sure
wouldn't want a book to have tissue-paper pages. It's a tricky balance.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Ninth Virtual Anniversary: 2 days and counting
Alex Martelli
news:92ico9$jde$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <t4o1vr8...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jason Cunliffe <jas...@nomadicsltd.com> wrote:
> >
> >The only shame is not the author's fault - it is the still crazy high
price
> >$45 and thick paper which bulks the 760pages to 2.5" thick.
>
> Hmmm.... I don't know how thick the pages actually are, but I sure
> wouldn't want a book to have tissue-paper pages. It's a tricky balance.
63.5 mm for 760 pages works out at over 83 microns per page.
Rough comparison with a few high-quality books around here (O'Reilly,
Cambridge University Press, Addison-Wesley) appears to show a range
of, roughly, 30 to 60 microns per page. And it's anything BUT
'tissue-paper' (or fine India paper, for that matter). Over 80u/pg
is _really_ thick paper -- not quite cardboard, but...:-)
Alex
Fred Yankowski
>$45 and thick paper which bulks the 760pages to 2.5" thick.
Bookpool.com lists it at $28.95, but it's out of stock.
I actually prefer heavier paper since it allows me to wield my
highlighter with abandon without worrying about marring the backside
of the marked page.
Stephen R. Figgins
> highlighter with abandon without worrying about marring the backside
> of the marked page.
For thinner paper, or high recycle content paper like O'Reilly uses,
highlighting is definitely a problem. Avery Dennison, however, has a
product that works greaton these kinds of papers. It is called the
Glide-Stik. It is sort of a cross between a highlighter and a crayon.
-Stephen
Steve Lamb
>I actually prefer heavier paper since it allows me to wield my
>highlighter with abandon without worrying about marring the backside
>of the marked page.
Not to mention 2'5" isn't all that thick. I have fictional paperbacks
that are that thick. :)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Aahz Maruch
Steve Lamb <morp...@here.not.there> wrote:
>On 29 Dec 2000 17:54:15 GMT, Fred Yankowski <f...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>
>>I actually prefer heavier paper since it allows me to wield my
>>highlighter with abandon without worrying about marring the backside
>>of the marked page.
>
> Not to mention 2'5" isn't all that thick. I have fictional paperbacks
>that are that thick. :)
Really? You have paperbacks more than two feet thick???? (No fair
counting all the Robert Jordans as a single book.)
Steve Lamb
>In article <slrn94pnr...@teleute.rpglink.com>,
>Steve Lamb <morp...@here.not.there> wrote:
>> Not to mention 2'5" isn't all that thick. I have fictional paperbacks
>>that are that thick. :)
>Really? You have paperbacks more than two feet thick???? (No fair
>counting all the Robert Jordans as a single book.)
Touche'. 2.5". :)
Roy Smith
morp...@here.not.there wrote:
> >> Not to mention 2'5" isn't all that thick. I have fictional
> >> paperbacks
> >>that are that thick. :)
>
> >Really? You have paperbacks more than two feet thick???? (No fair
> >counting all the Robert Jordans as a single book.)
>
> Touche'. 2.5". :)
But I thought in python " and ' meant the same thing? :-)
Steve Lamb
>But I thought in python " and ' meant the same thing? :-)
Bwahahahahaha!!!! Good one.
David Lees
Python Developers's Handbook by Lessa. It is comparable length
(actually about 150 pages more) than Core Python. They both look like
they are aimed at newbies like me.
david lees
Ben Wolfson
>In article <slrn94pnr...@teleute.rpglink.com>,
>Steve Lamb <morp...@here.not.there> wrote:
>>On 29 Dec 2000 17:54:15 GMT, Fred Yankowski <f...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I actually prefer heavier paper since it allows me to wield my
>>>highlighter with abandon without worrying about marring the backside
>>>of the marked page.
>>
>> Not to mention 2'5" isn't all that thick. I have fictional paperbacks
>>that are that thick. :)
>
>Really? You have paperbacks more than two feet thick???? (No fair
>counting all the Robert Jordans as a single book.)
He did say the books were fictional.
--
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
I say, an object can move whether or not an "external (male, masculine)
force" chooses to act upon (rape) it!
-- David Zacuto
Greg Jorgensen
news:92ig6...@news2.newsguy.com...
> 63.5 mm for 760 pages works out at over 83 microns per page.
I saw the Chun book at Powell's and at first glance it doesn't seem to add
anything to the online documentation and the Beazley reference book. I
didn't need to learn about loops and variables (or objects and references)
when I learned Python, though, so your mileage may vary.
I don't know about books published in Italy, but here in America books in
general, and technical books especially, are sold by weight rather than
quality of the content. For years now Que, SAMS, Sybex, et al. have
simultaneously made their books thicker and heavier while reducing the
useful content. Remove the hundreds of pages of useless printed code, the
30-page tables of contents, and the lame humor that pollutes $50 technical
books, you are left with very little useful content, usually re-hashed
straight from the official documentation. Somehow Kernighan & Ritchie taught
C to hundreds of thousands of programmers in fewer than 300 pages (just
under an inch on thin but highliter-safe paper, and still in great shape
after more than ten years of regular use), but SAMS' authors need 700+ pages
and almost 6 inches to teach HTML or Dreamweaver.
The thick heavy technical books I have bought have invariably fallen apart
after a short time. I have a well-used edition of Poe, almost 100 years old,
printed on Nelson's India Paper, and it is has held up very well.
--
Greg Jorgensen
Deschooling Society
Portland, Oregon, USA
gr...@pobox.com
A.M. Kuchling
>I don't know about books published in Italy, but here in America books in
>general, and technical books especially, are sold by weight rather than
>quality of the content. For years now Que, SAMS, Sybex, et al. have
Philip Greenspun's story about writing his book on databased-backed
Web sites, at http://philip.greenspun.com/wtr/dead-trees/story.html,
is relevant here, particularly the section titled "Why Computer Books
Suck". It's notable that most of the really good books I've read
lately have been quite slim. ("Into the Wild", "Extreme Programming
Explained", "Telling", "Ghost Children", "Magnificent Corpses"...)
This isn't to say that thick books are automatically bad, especially
when dealing with fiction, but for technical books thickness may
indicate that the author can't boil things down to their essence very
well.
--amk
Kragen Sitaker
David Lees <de...@NOtheworldSPAMMY.com> wrote:
>Actually, another new Python book has also come out recently, called
>Python Developers's Handbook by Lessa.
Does she include tips on dragon-riding?
Let us know how it is after you read it.
--
<kra...@pobox.com> Kragen Sitaker <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we possess
ourselves.
-- Gandalf the White [J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Two Towers", Bk 3, Ch. XI]
Roy Smith
> for technical books thickness may indicate that the author can't boil
> things down to their essence very well.
Absolutely. I'm horrified at the number of 600, 700, 800, or more page
programming books out there. Most of them are just bloated.
I learned C from the original K&R. The book was about a 1/2 inch thick.
Probably no more than about 150 pages. It didn't try to be all things to all
people, it just tried to teach you C. And it did a very good job.