Dean S Wilson writes:
> I dislike the Learning Perl/TK book
Before I launch in a kind of defence of the book, let me remind you
all that I liked the book before Tim started signing my paycheque. :-)
> Learning Perl/TK just seemed to be too much of a rehash of the
> perldoc pages
There are perldoc pages? When I was learning, I struggled for months
to find a comprehensive set of manpages on Perl/Tk. It seemed that
there were patchy Perl docs (some widgets covered, some not), and all
the Tcl/Tk docs (leaving me with no idea of how the widget options and
calling conventions work in *Perl*).
This book is the only one to tell me what I wanted to know: how do I
use these bloody widgets in Perl?
I wonder whether the fact that you wanted a different book isn't
clouding your opinion of this one. It sounds like you wanted
something else. Other than having "a couple of complete sample
applications", and without the detailed widget descriptions, I can't
work out what it was. I would like to know, though.
> Learning Perl/TK should be used as an off-line reference if its used
> at all.
Learning Perl/Tk isn't really *meant* to be a reference. Like the
other Learning books, it's supposed to be an introduction to the
subject. The Perl/Tk Pocket Ref, as you point out, is a much better
reference. Learning Perl/Tk tells you how to write Perl/Tk programs,
what widgets are at your disposal, and what they do.
In fairness, I do have to say that the writing in the Perl/Tk book
needed another editorial pass. We realize that in hindsight. It's
still readable, just a little ... quirky :-)
> I'm waiting for the Manning one which seems to have been delayed
> more times than the railtrack service
I can't even find this on their web site. Is it still being worked
on?
Nat
