4 ms·

I don't think the learner would appreciate the subtleties, and I don't agree that they'll learn anything from it. I can reinforce each lesson/problem you're de

I don't think the learner would appreciate the subtleties, and I don't agree that they'll learn anything from it. I can reinforce each lesson/problem you're describing one by one through the exercises, but a new person simply wouldn't know good code if it slapped them in the face. Confer with Learn Python the Hard Way to get a feel for the aesthetic and technique I'm working towards. I don't want to write bulletproof code, I want to teach them how and why to write bulletproof code. I'm not qualified to meet that kind of lofty standard anyway.

there 16y ago
I don't think the learner would appreciate the subtleties, and I don't agree that they'll learn anything from it. I can reinforce each lesson/problem you're describing one by one through the exercises, but a new person simply wouldn't know good code if it slapped them in the face. that is my point: your readers might not understand everything you're doing, so they're just going to copy and paste parts of it into their new projects. if you give them sloppy code to learn from, they're going to copy that sloppiness into their code that makes its way into the real world. there are a lot of things in c that new programmers have to be especially careful about that aren't relevant to python.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - pg 16y ago
    Actually you're the one who's out of line here, for attacking someone on the assumption that they downvoted you.
    - alnayyir 16y ago
      You are omniscient lately. Retracted.
- kingofspain 16y ago
  Agreed. I was littering code with schoolboy mistakes for a couple of years because of this. The complex stuff was great (heh) but some of the absolute basics were braindead because I thought I knew it. I'd been doing that stuff from day one and never had a problem... Until I did.
BrandonM 16y ago
> I don't want to write bulletproof code, I want to teach them how and why to write bulletproof code. This confuses me. How can you teach someone to do something if you won't do it yourself? Reading your statement literally, you are effectively going to say, "This is how and why to write bulletproof code, but I'm not going to." The whole point of LxTHW is to learn by doing. If you're doing it wrong, they're learning it wrong. > I'm not qualified to meet that kind of lofty standard anyway. Then you shouldn't write the book. Honestly. I know you intend to do some good and to be productive, but serving as a teacher and a reference point in an area that you're not qualified in is actually counterproductive. I'm not saying don't write the book. Get qualified first.
- alnayyir 16y ago
  Nobody's qualified to run a company when they do their first startup either.
  - BrandonM 16y ago
    That's a pretty dishonest analogy. Your first startup will succeed or fail based on its merits. If you write a book for beginners that is inaccurate, those inaccuracies will be spread in spite of their lack of merit.
fauigerzigerk 16y ago
If you're not qualified to meet that standard then don't write a C book (or learn more before you do). C programs are either bulletproof or they are a hazard.
- jimwise 16y ago
  On the bright side, forcing yourself to write bulletproof code for the book may well be the best way to become qualified.
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    On the dot.
  - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
    If I understood him correctly he said that he didn't want to try to do that.
    - alnayyir 16y ago
      Sort of, I'm not going to try to write perfect code, but I will make myself a better programmer by doing this. Further, the aim is to teach people how and why to write bulletproof code, not to demonstrate bulletproof CString tutorials.
- alnayyir 16y ago
  The unwillingness to do for fear of violating some perfect model leads to never making progress at all. No such thing as a perfect program, startup, relationship, or book.
  - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
    I'm not saying you shouldn't write the book because it might not be perfect. I just disagree with your concept for the book. I think readers must see good code even if they don't understand immediately why it is good code. C programs that aren't really good tend to be really bad because they crash or worse. Not being perfect is not the same as going in the wrong direction.

there 16y ago

I don't think the learner would appreciate the subtleties, and I don't agree that they'll learn anything from it. I can reinforce each lesson/problem you're describing one by one through the exercises, but a new person simply wouldn't know good code if it slapped them in the face. that is my point: your readers might not understand everything you're doing, so they're just going to copy and paste parts of it into their new projects. if you give them sloppy code to learn from, they're going to copy that sloppiness into their code that makes its way into the real world. there are a lot of things in c that new programmers have to be especially careful about that aren't relevant to python.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- pg 16y ago
  Actually you're the one who's out of line here, for attacking someone on the assumption that they downvoted you.
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    You are omniscient lately. Retracted.
kingofspain 16y ago
Agreed. I was littering code with schoolboy mistakes for a couple of years because of this. The complex stuff was great (heh) but some of the absolute basics were braindead because I thought I knew it. I'd been doing that stuff from day one and never had a problem... Until I did.

BrandonM 16y ago

> I don't want to write bulletproof code, I want to teach them how and why to write bulletproof code. This confuses me. How can you teach someone to do something if you won't do it yourself? Reading your statement literally, you are effectively going to say, "This is how and why to write bulletproof code, but I'm not going to." The whole point of LxTHW is to learn by doing. If you're doing it wrong, they're learning it wrong. > I'm not qualified to meet that kind of lofty standard anyway. Then you shouldn't write the book. Honestly. I know you intend to do some good and to be productive, but serving as a teacher and a reference point in an area that you're not qualified in is actually counterproductive. I'm not saying don't write the book. Get qualified first.

alnayyir 16y ago
Nobody's qualified to run a company when they do their first startup either.
- BrandonM 16y ago
  That's a pretty dishonest analogy. Your first startup will succeed or fail based on its merits. If you write a book for beginners that is inaccurate, those inaccuracies will be spread in spite of their lack of merit.

fauigerzigerk 16y ago

If you're not qualified to meet that standard then don't write a C book (or learn more before you do). C programs are either bulletproof or they are a hazard.

jimwise 16y ago
On the bright side, forcing yourself to write bulletproof code for the book may well be the best way to become qualified.
- alnayyir 16y ago
  On the dot.
- fauigerzigerk 16y ago
  If I understood him correctly he said that he didn't want to try to do that.
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    Sort of, I'm not going to try to write perfect code, but I will make myself a better programmer by doing this. Further, the aim is to teach people how and why to write bulletproof code, not to demonstrate bulletproof CString tutorials.
alnayyir 16y ago
The unwillingness to do for fear of violating some perfect model leads to never making progress at all. No such thing as a perfect program, startup, relationship, or book.
- fauigerzigerk 16y ago
  I'm not saying you shouldn't write the book because it might not be perfect. I just disagree with your concept for the book. I think readers must see good code even if they don't understand immediately why it is good code. C programs that aren't really good tend to be really bad because they crash or worse. Not being perfect is not the same as going in the wrong direction.