Perhaps I am just dumb

[wooks]

Joshua Macy <l0819m0v0smfm001 at sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<3C64F51A.2070208 at sneakemail.com>...
> 
>    Have you tried following the Python for Beginners link on 
> www.python.org?  http://www.python.org/doc/Newbies.html has links to all 
> sorts of material for beginners, including help at python.org (a volunteer 
> help desk) and tutor at python.org (a low volume mailing list).

Yes. See reply to Sheila.

>    I don't think searching the discussion archives is all that helpful 
> unless you have a specific question that you want answered and if you 
> do, you haven't mentioned it.
> 

I did have a specific question but I searched the archives first
before posting it. What I read led me to put up this post rather than
ask my question.


> 
>    comp.lang.python is not a forum specifically for beginners; 

wouldn't expect it to be
If you dip into a random 
> 
>    As for concepts "understood since grade 2", that usually means "it 
> worked like X in this other language Y that I know, why doesn't Python 
> follow this 'natural' approach?"  If you hang around a while, though, 
> you'll start to notice what the veterans of the newsgroup realized a 
> long time ago, which is that the 'naturalness' of X depends entirely on 
> which language Y the person is thinking of.  

because that language handles it the way Grade 2 taught him it would
be handled.  To me that should set the intellectual level of the
discussion.

> 
>    I think that's exactly it.  If you really want to know why something 
> in Python is the way it is conceptually, you often have to be prepared 
> for a somewhat complicated answer, philosophically or mathematically. 

Not found this with Perl. The Camel book does an excellent job of that
sort of thing. I've had my problems with that book but they are of a
different nature. Unfortunately the reviews have dissuaded me from
acquiring it's Python counterpart - Programming Python.

> 
> One of the basic philosophies of Python design is that it is wrong for 
> the language to guess when presented with something that's ambiguous. 

Which seems to be the opposite of the Perl philosophy - we will try to
do the right thing.

> That something is "automagical" is usually a swear word in Python.  This 
> can make Python seem hairier than other languages which cheerfully take 
> a stab at what the designers think you may have wanted, but the Python 
> belief is that those languages are leading you down the garden path, and 
> sooner rather than later you'll be bitten by the subtlety that the other 
> language tried to gloss over.
> 

Hmmm. The good thing about the Perl approch is that (if you read the
right resource) you get an explanation of the process via it tries to
do the right thing, which is very effective at getting the conceptual
message across.
 
> 
> Did you actually try any of the examples of manipulating Word or Excel 
> from Python?   Python for Win32 is an excellent book, IMO, but way 
> overkill unless you have some specific need to interact with COM or the 
> Win32 OS APIs. It is not a book about learning Python.
> 
Haven't got that far. The book is the most appropriate for my needs -
scripting glue, interacting with WSH and COM rather than building
applications. I met the prerequisites for readership but I am finding
out that the devil is in the detail.

> 
> > 
> > The benefits of using of Python as a scripting glue like language are
> > widely touted but don't seem (I am probably wrong but it's a 1st
> > impression) to be well catered for. As I said I am not interested in
> > building applications. Is there a forum for the dumber less demanding
> > Python user?
> > 
> 
> 
>    You need to ask a more specific question, or be more specific about 
> what exactly you're trying to accomplish and finding difficult.  General 
> complaints that it seems difficult to understand aren't likely to 
> generate much helpful advice.
> 

I was very specific. Is there a forum for the dumber less demanding
Python user? I got answers that I consider helpful. Thanks to you and
Sheila.

>    And, don't take this the wrong way, but it *is* dumb to go to a 
> language newsgroup and say "Maybe I'm dumb but [vague complaints about 
> the language not being easy]" if you have any expectation that posters 
> will rush in saying "No, no, you're not dumb, it's obviously the 
> language's fault" the way your friends and relatives might.  Usenet is 
> not the place to cruise to have your ego soothed.
> 

Let me put it somewhat differently so that there is no doubt about my
objective.
You guys say our language is a good one to learn first, it's really
simple. Well I recently got to grips with VB and when I've had cause
to go to a VB newsgroup have had no problem coping with the
intellectual level at which discussion is pitched. Now that to me says
something (even if it is VB is a language for idiots). I found
VBScript relatively painless to learn and it can get the job done for
me, I have been drawn to Python because of the unit testing tools
available (PyUnit and Pester) and decided to use it as a learning
opportunity.

I am not dumb. My ego is fine. I am just giving my impressions of
Python and some of the claims that advocates make of it.