Feedback desired on reworked ch 1 progr. intro (now Python 3.x, Windows)

Discussion in 'Python' started by Alf P. Steinbach, Oct 31, 2009.

  1. Hi all!

    After my earlier feedback request a lot of you responded with constructive
    criticism and suggestions.

    As a result of that I've changed the text to be based on *Python 3.x* instead of
    2.6+, and chapter 1 "Getting started" has grown from 9 pages to a whopping 11 pages!

    I would particularly like to thank the following persons (although of course I
    don't know whether any of them would recommend the old text, or the new text!
    :) ), because they directly caused changes of the text:

    Chris Rebert, in [comp.lang.python]
    Ch 1
    "all batteries included" -> "batteries included"
    "OS/X" -> "Mac OS X" (with a space, not a slash)
    "implementation" -> "distribution"

    Eric Brunel, in [comp.lang.python]
    Ch 1
    static type checking discussion yielding wrong impression

    , in [comp.lang.python]
    Ch 1
    Unclear that Windows subsystems are not something to do with Python.

    Ethan Furman, in private communication
    Ch 1
    Pointed out the renaming 2.6 "Tkinter" -> 3.x "tkinter"

    Jon Clements, in [comp.lang.python]
    Info about Python 3.x that let me switch to 3.x

    Plus, the person who suggested that I should mention the PSPad editor, but I
    forgot to note who that was (sorry).

    I hope this new version of ch 1 is, well, better, addresses some of the concerns
    raised? <g>

    Formats: PDF, text

    Now starting on ch 2, which with Python 3.x should become a lot cleaner...


    - Alf
    Alf P. Steinbach, Oct 31, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Re: Feedback desired on reworked ch 1 progr. intro (now Python 3.x,Windows)

    * Rhodri James:
    > Before we start, can I just say that I find Google Docs loathsome?
    > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:40:36 -0000, Alf P. Steinbach <>
    > wrote:
    >> I hope this new version of ch 1 is, well, better, addresses some of
    >> the concerns raised? <g>

    > Section 1.1 needs serious work.

    Could you please expand on that?

    It is a hint.

    Byt it doesn't leave me with much to go on regarding what you mean.

    > You have a very assertive writing style
    > and a lot of things that you definitively state are at best debatable.
    > If I'd picked that up in a shop and browsed that opening, I'd put the
    > book down and walk away; essentially you're calling your accuracy into
    > question before you've even said anything about programming.

    Could you please expand on this also? Sort of, more concrete?

    Cheers & thanks,

    - Alf
    Alf P. Steinbach, Nov 1, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alf P. Steinbach
    Alf P. Steinbach
    Feb 1, 2005
  2. Mark
    Michele Simionato
    Jun 30, 2004
  3. Mark
  4. Alf P. Steinbach
  5. Alf P. Steinbach
    Alf P. Steinbach
    Dec 20, 2009

Share This Page