On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:07:28AM -0400, John Macdonald wrote: > I concur. After using Programming Perl for so long and finding > it extremely effective, I was very disappointed in Programming > Python. Somewhere in the first 50 or so pages, I noticed a > comment saying something like "this book is not intended to be > a reference manual" - unfortunately, from my experience with the > camel, that is exactly what I had expected it to be when I got > the book. (The camel includes a full reference manual, but > augments that with expository info that tripes the size in a useful > way. The python is even larger but missing that essential core > ingredient.)
I think a case can be made for splitting exposition and reference into seperate books. It was, for example, what happened to Java In A Nutshell, and the 2nd and subsequent editions (the 2e being when it was split) seem to have been quite popular. Mind you, I don't know if there exists a good reference book for python. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive What is the difference between hearing aliens through the fillings in your teeth and hearing Jesus in your heart? _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
