Python in a Nutshell -- Book vs Web

[W. eWatson]

I read an Amazon of Python in a Nutshell. The first edition is supposedly
much like the web site. What web site? The second edition apparently adds
more to the book than the web site.
--
Wayne Watson (Watson Adventures, Prop., Nevada City, CA)

(121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N) GMT-8 hr std. time)
Obz Site: 39° 15' 7" N, 121° 2' 32" W, 2700 feet

Web Page: <www.speckledwithstars.net/>

[Matimus]

On Aug 28, 3:05*pm, "W. eWatson" <[e-mail]:

I read an Amazon of Python in a Nutshell. The first edition is supposedly
much like the web site. What web site? The second edition apparently adds
more to the book than the web site.

O'Reilly seems to just read all of the available documentation and
regurgitate it in book form. The "in a nutshell" series being the
worst offender. Most of "Python in a Nutshell" tells you the same
information that you can find at http://docs.python.org, which is
probably "the web site" being referenced.

Matt

[Cameron Laird]

In article <b2**********************************@a8g2000prf.g ooglegroups.com>,
Matimus <mc******@gmail.comwrote:

>On Aug 28, 3:05*pm, "W. eWatson" <[e-mail]:

>I read an Amazon of Python in a Nutshell. The first edition is supposedly
much like the web site. What web site? The second edition apparently adds
more to the book than the web site.

O'Reilly seems to just read all of the available documentation and
regurgitate it in book form. The "in a nutshell" series being the
worst offender. Most of "Python in a Nutshell" tells you the same
information that you can find at http://docs.python.org, which is
probably "the web site" being referenced.

Matt

No. No, to an almost libelous extent.

As <URL: http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=7822/ur0303j/ >
hints, the first edition of *PIAN* included abundant material
that was found nowhere else. Senior Tcl developers recognized
*PIAN*'s unique values to such an extent that they snapped up
the second edition quickly when it became available. It's
simply mistaken to characterize *PIAN* as merely a regurgitation
of the available documentation; in fact, while hewing to the
style of its series, it's among the most *original* and well-
crafted of books on Python.

[Fredrik Lundh]

Cameron Laird wrote:

No. No, to an almost libelous extent.

No matter what you write about, there's always a certain subcategory of
potential readers who insist that collection, editing, filtering,
structuring, clarification, and the author's real-life experience of the
topic he's writing about has no value at all. My guess is that they
don't value their own time very highly.

</F>

[Cameron Laird]

In article <ma*************************************@python.or g>,
Fredrik Lundh <fr*****@pythonware.comwrote:

>Cameron Laird wrote:

>No. No, to an almost libelous extent.

No matter what you write about, there's always a certain subcategory of
potential readers who insist that collection, editing, filtering,
structuring, clarification, and the author's real-life experience of the
topic he's writing about has no value at all. My guess is that they
don't value their own time very highly.

</F>

Insightful. Well, I find it insightful; perhaps it's
a personal blindness on my part. I expect programmers
to understand, for example, that two lines of code can
be a good day's production, in some circumstances,
while it's "civilians" and managers who scorn their
value on quantitative grounds. It's hard for me to
conceive of an expert programmer who doesn't esteem
what a high-quality book provides.

[Michele Simionato]

On Aug 29, 1:44*pm, [e-mail] (Cameron Laird) wrote:

Insightful. *Well, I find it insightful; perhaps it's
a personal blindness on my part. *I expect programmers
to understand, for example, that two lines of code can
be a good day's production, in some circumstances

My best days are the ones were I have a negative count of lines, i.e.
I am able to remove cruft ;)