Book "python programming patterns". anybody read this??
gmcm at hypernet.com
Thu Dec 27 08:33:23 EST 2001
Peter Milliken wrote:
> No Gordon, that's a ridiculous assumption!
> Who said the code was bad? Not I!
>From the first reply to my first post:
>> it's probably not very good code.
And you (apparently) agreed.
> Your original email implied that you
> had to put some amount of study into understanding the examples - there
> was an implication that the examples where not straight forward and
> therefore required some considerable time and effort on your part to
> understand what was going on.
> Nobody has tried to equate this with "bad code", just bad coding
> practice (in our opinion - well, Roy's and mine :-)) - a very different
I fail to discern the distinction, particularly as stated above.
> Perhaps if you take objection to our comments you should perhaps
> clarify and quantify your comments on just how much effort was required
> to understand the examples? and why? i.e. if the book is more
> "algorithmic" in nature then perhaps you cannot get away from examples
> that do take some considerable study effort - if this is the case then
> perhaps you should provide that clarification/caveat on your comment.
Already did so. From my second post:
>> The hardest thing to follow was his (highly efficient)
>> implementation of an algorithm for computing whether one set
>> is a subset of another. So it's not for people who don't
>> like low-level stuff.
> Otherwise I'll have to stick with my decision (unless I stood in the
> book store and read the book! :-)).
I have no objection to your decision. All three posts I've made have said
that the book is not for everyone. I just don't want you (plural) to chase
off people who could get something from the book.
Save your money. Just don't slur the book based on an unfounded inference.
More information about the Python-list