4 ms·
Yes, at the time that I started writing, Python 3 was just a dot on the horizon. Even now, there are a lot of libraries that haven't been ported across, and the
by anthonyb 15y ago
Yes, at the time that I started writing, Python 3 was just a dot on the horizon. Even now, there are a lot of libraries that haven't been ported across, and the book has a strong practical bent (It's as much a learning to program book as a learning Python book).
- thepreacher 15y agoI have never done this before,(ie buy a book based on the Table of content), but this is going to be my first. I am pre ordering from Amazon UK. Do you have any idea when it will reach sellers outside the US? Oh and I hope for a first edition the typos are not too much?
- anthonyb 15y agoThere are two sample chapters, so you don't have to jump in completely cold. The print version is available on February 13th I think, so perhaps a few days or a week after that? It's had several reviewers go through it with a fine toothed comb, so while there are probably still some typos, they are hopefully very small.
- mapleoin 15y agoI don't think that's a reasonable excuse. Mark Lutz's Learning Python does a very good comparison of a lot the features in the language as they are implemented in both python 2.6 and 3.x. That book was released in September 2009: http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596158071.do http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596158071.do Edit: Actually, while reading one of the sample chapters it becomes apparent that this book is more of a general introduction to programming than a book about learning Python. I also noticed that there are a few notes sprinkled here and there about changes in python 3.0. So I withdraw my previous criticism. Also: kudos for getting the SouthPark reference about the rectal probe in there :)