Books I'd like to see

[Dave Benjamin]

David Mertz
Functional Programming in Python
Using the Xoltar Toolkit

Steve Holden
Python Web Services

Alex Martelli
Metaprogramming in Python

Guido van Rossum
My secret addiction to comp.lang.pytho n
A biography

Tim Peters
The Python Philosophy

Eric S Raymond
Python for the Working Hacker

Gerson Kurz
Designing Obfuscated Languages
With Python Parser/Generators

Tim Peters and Doug Bagley
The Zen of Computer Programming

Bill Venners
Selected Interviews

--
..:[ dave benjamin (ramenboy) -:- www.ramenfest.com -:- www.3dex.com ]:.
: d r i n k i n g l i f e o u t o f t h e c o n t a i n e r :

[KefX]

Book I'd hate to see:
Herbert Schildt
Python: The Complete Reference

- Kef

[Scott Chapman]

<rant?>
I'd like to see a good introduction to Python for brand new programmers
that starts with Python's object orientation (at least as the
assumption, if not explicitly dealing with objects at the beginning).

I've looked over every book on the market and the Net that is
introductory to Python and none of them emphasize Python's uniqueness
and power. It is not possible to rightly understand Python without
understanding that virtually everything except the keywords are
objects. This is the year 2003 and books are still introducing
Structured Programming paradigms and then re-teaching by introducing
Object Oriented later. This is Wrong! :-)

Guido's Tutorial probably comes the closest. He assumes objects under
the hood in his presentation of the material, rather than trying to
make Python fit into the old molds. If it had a full set of exercises
it would be a good starting text, perhaps needing some fleshing out in
areas.

Maybe one of the existing books out has exercises at the end of the
chapters; another shortcoming IMHO.
</rant>

[Nick Vargish]

I would like to see "wxPython Programming" from Grayson, John E.

His book on tkinter is pretty darn good, but I'm much more interested
in wxWindows. I find the need to look up the C++ wxWindows
documentation and do a translation to the Python equivalent really
gets in my way of learning how to use the widgets properly.

Nick

--
# sigmask || 0.2 || 20030107 || public domain || feed this to a python
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y )-1),' Ojdl!Wbshjti!=o bwAcboefstobudi/psh?')

[Bryan]

Nick Vargish wrote:

I would like to see "wxPython Programming" from Grayson, John E.

His book on tkinter is pretty darn good, but I'm much more interested
in wxWindows. I find the need to look up the C++ wxWindows
documentation and do a translation to the Python equivalent really
gets in my way of learning how to use the widgets properly.

Nick

i 2nd this

bryan

[Michele Simionato]

Scott Chapman <sc********@mis chko.com> wrote in message news:<ma******* *************** **************@ python.org>...

<rant?>
I'd like to see a good introduction to Python for brand new programmers
that starts with Python's object orientation (at least as the
assumption, if not explicitly dealing with objects at the beginning).

I've looked over every book on the market and the Net that is
introductory to Python and none of them emphasize Python's uniqueness
and power. It is not possible to rightly understand Python without
understanding that virtually everything except the keywords are
objects. This is the year 2003 and books are still introducing
Structured Programming paradigms and then re-teaching by introducing
Object Oriented later. This is Wrong! :-)

Guido's Tutorial probably comes the closest. He assumes objects under
the hood in his presentation of the material, rather than trying to
make Python fit into the old molds. If it had a full set of exercises
it would be a good starting text, perhaps needing some fleshing out in
areas.

Maybe one of the existing books out has exercises at the end of the
chapters; another shortcoming IMHO.
</rant>

But Python is designed in such a way that a lot of it can be taught
without talking about objects. Yes, you are right that in its heart
it is very strongly object oriented (maybe even more than Java or Ruby),
but NOT on the surface. This is on purpose and I think it is a good
thing (for teaching purposes and for other reasons too). I would welcome
a metaprogramming/advanced OOP book by the Martellibot, but this would NOT
be a book for beginners.
Actually I was confused by the tutorial that you liked so much, since
when I first read it I knew nothing about OOP. I don't think talking
immediately about OOP would be helpful for a total beginner. On the
other hand, if you already knew OOP from another language, then you
are an experienced enough programmer and you can learn Python from
the Nutshell, isn't it?

Michele Simionato

[Alex Martelli]

Michele Simionato wrote:
...

But Python is designed in such a way that a lot of it can be taught
without talking about objects. Yes, you are right that in its heart
it is very strongly object oriented (maybe even more than Java or Ruby),
I don't know about "more than Ruby" -- Ruby's pretty thoroughly OO, too.
I'd call it a wash.
but NOT on the surface. This is on purpose and I think it is a good
thing (for teaching purposes and for other reasons too). I would welcome
To teach people coming from other procedural languages, yes. To teach
total beginners, I dunno; Smalltalk (arguably even more OO than Ruby or
Python, as even 'if' is not a statement but a message sent to a boolean
object for example) was in part designed to teach children. I'm not sure
how I would go about starting out with OO, but it's presumably a respectable
theory. Are there books based on that theory for any language, btw?
a metaprogramming/advanced OOP book by the Martellibot, but this would NOT
be a book for beginners.
If it had "advanced" in the title it sure wouldn't:-).
Actually I was confused by the tutorial that you liked so much, since
when I first read it I knew nothing about OOP. I don't think talking
immediately about OOP would be helpful for a total beginner. On the
I don't think Guido's tutorial is oriented to total beginners at all.
other hand, if you already knew OOP from another language, then you
are an experienced enough programmer and you can learn Python from
the Nutshell, isn't it?

But the Nutshell only gets into OO _after_ it has covered functions, flow
control, etc; it doesn't _start_ from OO, which is the original poster's
request.
Alex

[Anand Pillai]

You forgot the following.

1. Wesley Chun ( or is it Alex Chun ?)

Core Python Programming

2. David Mertz

Text Processing in Python.

I would like to see a general book on
"Software development using Python", which will discuss
the practitioner's approach to developing software
using python, by one of the established methods.

May be this can be taken up as a joint project by
one of the python gurus say Alex or David, and one of those
Software Engineering/Methodology gurus like Martin Fowler
or Bruce Eckel.

Just my $0.02.

-Anand

Bryan <be*****@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:<yk_sb.144 769$275.445898@ attbi_s53>...

Nick Vargish wrote:

I would like to see "wxPython Programming" from Grayson, John E.

His book on tkinter is pretty darn good, but I'm much more interested
in wxWindows. I find the need to look up the C++ wxWindows
documentation and do a translation to the Python equivalent really
gets in my way of learning how to use the widgets properly.

Nick

i 2nd this

bryan

[Anand Pillai]

Oh, you were listing books that were *not* in
the market. I got it the other way round ;-)

Anyway, my argument for "Sofware development
in Python" holds.

regards

-Anand

Bryan <be*****@yahoo. com> wrote in message news:<yk_sb.144 769$275.445898@ attbi_s53>...

Nick Vargish wrote:

I would like to see "wxPython Programming" from Grayson, John E.

His book on tkinter is pretty darn good, but I'm much more interested
in wxWindows. I find the need to look up the C++ wxWindows
documentation and do a translation to the Python equivalent really
gets in my way of learning how to use the widgets properly.

Nick

i 2nd this

bryan

[Dave Benjamin]

In article <TU************ *******@news2.t in.it>, Alex Martelli wrote:

Michele Simionato wrote:
...

But Python is designed in such a way that a lot of it can be taught
without talking about objects. Yes, you are right that in its heart
it is very strongly object oriented (maybe even more than Java or Ruby),

I don't know about "more than Ruby" -- Ruby's pretty thoroughly OO, too.
I'd call it a wash.

Ruby certainly claims to be more OO (and if Smalltalk is your definition of
OO, it's a logical conclusion). Of course, everyone has a different
definition of what OO really is. Including Alan Kay. =)

a metaprogramming/advanced OOP book by the Martellibot, but this would NOT
be a book for beginners.

If it had "advanced" in the title it sure wouldn't:-).

This reminds me of a book I purchased last year called "Macromedia Flash MX
ActionScripting : Advanced Training from the Source". Given that title,
wouldn't you expect advanced concepts in ActionScript to be covered? Think
again - it's advanced *training*. In other words, it's the training that's
advanced, not the subject matter. Needless to say, I felt pretty shafted. ;)

other hand, if you already knew OOP from another language, then you
are an experienced enough programmer and you can learn Python from
the Nutshell, isn't it?

But the Nutshell only gets into OO _after_ it has covered functions, flow
control, etc; it doesn't _start_ from OO, which is the original poster's
request.

Was this a conscious decision? If so, what were your motivations behind
procedural-first vs. objects-first?

--
..:[ dave benjamin (ramenboy) -:- www.ramenfest.com -:- www.3dex.com ]:.
: d r i n k i n g l i f e o u t o f t h e c o n t a i n e r :