Newbe-books

[Sarge]

Hi,
I'm newbe of python, but not of programming (a lot of Matlab, some
C, a bit of C++), I want a *good* book on python for self-study.
I'm short of money, I don't want to make any mistakes, so does
anybody have any suggestions (buy this-don't buy that)?

Thanx,
Sarge

 

[Robert Kern]

Hi,
I'm newbe of python, but not of programming (a lot of Matlab, some
C, a bit of C++), I want a *good* book on python for self-study.
I'm short of money, I don't want to make any mistakes, so does
anybody have any suggestions (buy this-don't buy that)?

My suggestion: don't buy anything, yet. Work through the official
tutorial; start converting the more self-contained of your Matlab code
to Python; ask questions here, on the Tutor list[1], and the SciPy list
as appropriate. Read the source code of the packages you think you'll be
using: you'll get a better idea of how to code in Pythonic (or
SciPythonic) idiom this way.

In my experience, this "jump right in, the water's warm" approach
obviates much of the need for an introductory dead-tree book on the
language. Which isn't to say that such books aren't good or worthwhile,
but when you're strapped for cash, it's better to exhaust the freely
available material[2] before heading to the bookstore. Then again, if
reading book-length material on the computer screen makes your eyes all
googly or you want something you can read on the bus, then dead-tree is
the way to go, but I have no suggestions for you.

[1] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
[2] http://www.python.org/doc/Intros.html

Thanx,
Sarge

--
Robert Kern
(e-mail address removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

 

[Christopher Koppler]

Hi,
I'm newbe of python, but not of programming (a lot of Matlab, some
C, a bit of C++), I want a *good* book on python for self-study.
I'm short of money, I don't want to make any mistakes, so does
anybody have any suggestions (buy this-don't buy that)?

You could always search this group's archive via Google groups for
opinions, this question comes up quite frequently.
My personal preference, coming from a relatively similar background,
would be O'Reilly's Learning Python, which is now out in a second
edition covering the new features up to Python 2.3.
But why not try the online tutorial(s) and reference, combined with
the interactive experience that Python gives you, it's usually all you
need if you're already familiar with programming in general.

 

[Nuff Said]

Since you have some programming background, I would recommend
David M. Beazley's "Python - Essential Reference (2nd edition)".

It gives a concise overview of the language and is a great
reference book, too. (Not like many other books which are
- at most - good for one reading only.)

The 'Essential Reference (2nd edition)" covers Python 2.1. So you
should read A. M. Kuchling's "What's new in Python 2.x" for Python
2.2 and 2.3 (which one should always do when a new Python version
is released). The articles can be found on the Python Homepage:

http://www.python.org/doc/2.2.3/whatsnew/whatsnew22.html
http://www.python.org/doc/2.3.3/whatsnew/whatsnew23.html

The above mentioned book, the "What's new ...' articles and
the Python 'Library Reference'

http://www.python.org/doc/2.3.3/lib/lib.html

are all you really need for a long time. (If you are interested
in GUI programming - e.g. Tkinter - you will need additional
sources of information. The same holds for other 'special' stuff.)

HTH, Nuff.

 

[Jon Willeke]

You could always search this group's archive via Google groups for
opinions, this question comes up quite frequently.
My personal preference, coming from a relatively similar background,
would be O'Reilly's Learning Python, which is now out in a second
edition covering the new features up to Python 2.3.
But why not try the online tutorial(s) and reference, combined with
the interactive experience that Python gives you, it's usually all you
need if you're already familiar with programming in general.

Ditto. I learned from the tutorial and DejaNews. I bought _Programming
Python_, because I liked _Programming Perl_ so much, but I haven't had
much use for it. I'm evaluating _Learning Python_ as a training aid.
It's not bad, so far. I'll probably give it to our next hire.

 

[Nick LaForge]

followup on my previous comment. in Learning Python, Lutz discusses
Tkinter at some length. This is understandable for historical reasons,
but wxPython would be the better choice.

If LP had a couple of pages on threads and a useful discussion of
wxPython, then Learning Python would totally rock! The sun is setting
on Tkinter.)

(are you out there, Mark? an idea for the third edition?)

What about pyGTK?

 

[asdf sdf]

Ditto. I learned from the tutorial and DejaNews. I bought _Programming
Python_, because I liked _Programming Perl_ so much, but I haven't had
much use for it. I'm evaluating _Learning Python_ as a training aid.
It's not bad, so far. I'll probably give it to our next hire.

I have both Learning Python and Programming Python. I use PP very
little. I have maybe 15 bookmarks in LP but only two in PP, a much
larger book. LP skips over threads as an advanced topic. So I got that
discussion from PP. But a couple of pages is all that it takes.

PP has more detail on the os and sys modules which was useful. But the
online doc would certainly have covered it in a pinch.

LP is a good book with good value for its size. PP just hasn't been a
'goto' reference. Lutz's strategy is to make LP the basic teaching
book, with PP the book for detailed exercises with more real-world
applications.

I haven't seen 2ed for LP, but I'm interested to see if it merits buying
if you already have 1ed.

 

[asdf sdf]

Ditto. I learned from the tutorial and DejaNews. I bought _Programming
Python_, because I liked _Programming Perl_ so much, but I haven't had
much use for it. I'm evaluating _Learning Python_ as a training aid.
It's not bad, so far. I'll probably give it to our next hire.

followup on my previous comment. in Learning Python, Lutz discusses
Tkinter at some length. This is understandable for historical reasons,
but wxPython would be the better choice.

If LP had a couple of pages on threads and a useful discussion of
wxPython, then Learning Python would totally rock! The sun is setting
on Tkinter.)

(are you out there, Mark? an idea for the third edition?)

 

[Ken Liu]

I am surprised no one has mentioned Dive Into Python, a free,
"open-source" Python book by Mark Pilgrim. It doesn't take the
typical approach of going through each language feature one at a time,
but I found that his approach was easily digestible and the
information is presented very deliberately. It is written for a
programmer audience, so it doesn't spend any time going explaining
basic concepts like inheritance and introspection. I spent a few days
reading through it a few months ago and quickly got up to speed with
Python.

http://www.diveintopython.org

Ken

 

[Cameron Laird]

.
.
.

wxPython, then Learning Python would totally rock! The sun is setting
on Tkinter.)

.
.
.
Perhaps so. I trust that asdf believes the evidence he sees
for Tkinter's demise. I agree that wxPython has much to re-
commend it. What's most certain, though, is that there have
been similar predictions about Tkinter's destiny for at least
the last eight years. The ... prematurity of these claims in
the past makes me hesitate to write Tkinter off now.

 

[Stephen Ferg]

"The Quick Python Book" for a very readable introduction -- a bit out
of date but that's really irrelevant at the newbie level.

"Python in a Nutshell" for a comprehensive reference.

Each is less than $30.

 

[lvirden]

According to Cameron Laird <[email protected]>:
erhaps so. I trust that asdf believes the evidence he sees
:for Tkinter's demise. I agree that wxPython has much to re-
:commend it. What's most certain, though, is that there have
:been similar predictions about Tkinter's destiny for at least
:the last eight years. The ... prematurity of these claims in
:the past makes me hesitate to write Tkinter off now.

Sorry - I hit the wrong button. I guess I misunderstood mxPython -
I thought it was designed around a specific toolkit. Does it
provide kde and gnome desktop compatibility? If not, then it
seems strange that pythonians would move from one non-standard
library to another.

 

[Cameron Laird]

.
.
.

:the last eight years. The ... prematurity of these claims in
:the past makes me hesitate to write Tkinter off now.

Sorry - I hit the wrong button. I guess I misunderstood mxPython -
I thought it was designed around a specific toolkit. Does it
provide kde and gnome desktop compatibility? If not, then it
seems strange that pythonians would move from one non-standard
library to another.

.
.
.
I don't know what "kde and gnome desktop compatibility" means.
I'm unconvinced the KDEers and GNOMEans do, though I'm willing
to learn. I find it exceptionally difficult to think of *any*
GUI toolkit as "standard", without considerable qualification.

The wxPythoneers are a good group. From all I know, Tkinter
remains more broadly portable than wxPython.

 

[lvirden]

According to Cameron Laird <[email protected]>:
:>Sorry - I hit the wrong button. I guess I misunderstood wxPython -
:>I thought it was designed around a specific toolkit. Does it
:>provide kde and gnome desktop compatibility? If not, then it
:>seems strange that pythonians would move from one non-standard
:>library to another.
: .
:I don't know what "kde and gnome desktop compatibility" means.
:I'm unconvinced the KDEers and GNOMEans do, though I'm willing
:to learn. I find it exceptionally difficult to think of *any*
:GUI toolkit as "standard", without considerable qualification.
:
:The wxPythoneers are a good group. From all I know, Tkinter
:remains more broadly portable than wxPython.

What I meant by such is this:

Do python applications, written using wxPython, take advantage of the
user's currently used KDE and/or GNOME themes, and do they communicate
with appropriate desktop facilities (sessions, drag and drop, clipboard,
etc.) when necessary?