still a valid book?

[John Salerno]

Hi everyone. I have Learning Python 2nd edition (O'Reilly) and I noticed
that Wrox has a newer book out (Beginning Python) that covers version
2.4. Do you think that Learning Python is still a good enough book to be
an intro to the language? Is there anything so different about 2.4 from
2.3 that it will mess me up to start with LP?

Thanks,
John

[Jonathan Gardner]

Re: still a valid book?

You may want to read
http://python.org/doc/2.4.2/whatsnew/whatsnew24.html to get an idea of
what has changed from 2.3 to 2.4 if you buy the 2.3 book.

[John Salerno]

Re: still a valid book?

Jonathan Gardner wrote:[color=blue]
> You may want to read
> http://python.org/doc/2.4.2/whatsnew/whatsnew24.html to get an idea of
> what has changed from 2.3 to 2.4 if you buy the 2.3 book.
>[/color]

Yeah, I was looking at that, but it seems a little over my head right
now. I just didn't want to learn anything and then have to "unlearn" it.
I'm sure I will always be adding new things, so that isn't so much the
problem I guess.

[Scott David Daniels]

Re: still a valid book?

John Salerno wrote:[color=blue]
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:[color=green]
>> You may want to read
>> http://python.org/doc/2.4.2/whatsnew/whatsnew24.html to get an idea of
>> what has changed from 2.3 to 2.4 if you buy the 2.3 book.
>>[/color]
>
> Yeah, I was looking at that, but it seems a little over my head right
> now. I just didn't want to learn anything and then have to "unlearn" it.
> I'm sure I will always be adding new things, so that isn't so much the
> problem I guess.[/color]
Python remains _extremely_ compatible from one minor version to the next
(2.2 to 2.3, 2.3 to 2.4, ...) Python 3000 (which may well be Python 3.0)
is allowed to break compatibility, _but_ it won't be conceptual
compatibility; it will just discard "old stuff we no longer like." I
would suggest you don't pay much attention to "old-style classes":
class WhatEver:
...
and only use "new-style" classes:
class SomeClass(objec t):
...
since the "old-style classes" are going away (the "class Name: ..."
syntax will start defining new-style classes as well). Starting with
2.3 will put you quite near the modern edge, and the changes you will
have to learn are not that great. People are still running code written
under 1.5.2, so 2.3 is really quite modern.

--Scott David Daniels
scott.daniels@a cm.org

[John Salerno]

Re: still a valid book?

Scott David Daniels wrote:[color=blue]
> John Salerno wrote:[color=green]
>> Jonathan Gardner wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> You may want to read
>>> http://python.org/doc/2.4.2/whatsnew/whatsnew24.html to get an idea of
>>> what has changed from 2.3 to 2.4 if you buy the 2.3 book.
>>>[/color]
>> Yeah, I was looking at that, but it seems a little over my head right
>> now. I just didn't want to learn anything and then have to "unlearn" it.
>> I'm sure I will always be adding new things, so that isn't so much the
>> problem I guess.[/color]
> Python remains _extremely_ compatible from one minor version to the next
> (2.2 to 2.3, 2.3 to 2.4, ...) Python 3000 (which may well be Python 3.0)
> is allowed to break compatibility, _but_ it won't be conceptual
> compatibility; it will just discard "old stuff we no longer like." I
> would suggest you don't pay much attention to "old-style classes":
> class WhatEver:
> ...
> and only use "new-style" classes:
> class SomeClass(objec t):
> ...
> since the "old-style classes" are going away (the "class Name: ..."
> syntax will start defining new-style classes as well). Starting with
> 2.3 will put you quite near the modern edge, and the changes you will
> have to learn are not that great. People are still running code written
> under 1.5.2, so 2.3 is really quite modern.
>
> --Scott David Daniels
> scott.daniels@a cm.org[/color]

Thanks for the advice.