Feedback desired on reworked ch 1 progr. intro (now Python 3.x, Windows)
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]
"all batteries included" -> "batteries included"
"OS/X" -> "Mac OS X" (with a space, not a slash)
"implementation" -> "distribution"
Eric Brunel, in [comp.lang.python]
static type checking discussion yielding wrong impression
email@example.com, in [comp.lang.python]
Unclear that Windows subsystems are not something to do with Python.
Ethan Furman, in private communication
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
Formats: PDF, text
Now starting on ch 2, which with Python 3.x should become a lot cleaner...
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> 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,
|All times are GMT. The time now is 02:00 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.