I like the idea of running native code in the browser, but I will be really excited when (if?) this becomes a standard. Ever since the now-defunct NPAPI stopped being the cross-browser solution of choice, we've been in dire need of something that is both native (i.e., not Javascript) and standard (i.e., not Chrome NaCl). Interesting nonetheless!
Plenty of time between now and January 2016 when MS will reject the use of SHA1. I understand that large corporations move slowly, but we have known about SHA1 shortcomings for a while now. I would like to read more about what products are affected, possible attacks in product contexts, and reasons for the long window until retirement! Even Windows 7 mainstream support will end in 2015!
I'm sick and tired of hearing these ignorant generalizations. Surely/. readership is composed of many geeks who get offended if you criticize their text editor, but can't they for once just pick up a book that has nothing to do with computers or Star Trek, so they become nuansed enough to not generalize the actions of some people in Saudi Arabia (yes, not all Saudis agree with their leaders actions), a couple of millions even, to the billion others who don't take that line and don't consider it a part of "sharia law"?
When I lived in Iraq, women were fully involved in society and didn't suffer from these draconian rules. Of course, that was before the born-again-Christian leaders of the US and other "free" western nations destroyed it.
In short, stop the hypocrisy, Saudi Arabia's leadership deserves our criticism. But if you're gonna make statement such as "Islam is terrible", you would have a better chance explaining your bigotry if you were to say "Christianity is terrible" or "the West is terrible" with which I'd take offense as much. It's not Islam that is terrible; It's this line of thinking no matter what religion or non-religion its supporters happens to profess.
I'm assuming the chapters are written so that you can "jump-in" without having to follow up the preceding material. I only question this point because the reviewer states: "His ideas flow logically from one to the next, incrementally building a story-like chain of problems and Python solutions."
Your assumption is correct. Naturally, in this class of literature, you expect the ability to random-access what you need. The logical flow refers to cohesive units of text that mostly span one chapter.
Granted, the choice of words is vague and the concept of coverage needs elaboration. Despite the distinction that is often made between the 2.x and 3.x branches, some features appear in minor versions belonging to each of them. Specifically, many of the features that were originally intended for 3.0 were back-ported to 2.6 as described in What's New in Python 3.0. In fact, there are library components in 3.0 that were later deprecated in 3.1!
I suppose I was paraphrasing the author's statement about his attempt to write future-proof code (as much as possible), so that most of the code could run unmodified or with minimal modifications. If you understand coverage as such, then there will be no confusion. However, if you understand coverage as the ability to write code that will readily run on both versions (having been tested on both), then you are right in pointing out the discrepancy.
As to the last comment, I surely did not go through an exhaustive proof-reading of the book à la peer review! I don't know about you, but I don't have that much free time to spare on such an adventure, so no, I didn't go through the 1300-page book, looking closely at the statements and library calls to know which versions of Python it covers (2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, 3.1, or a subset). My aim was to describe the structure of the book and overall place within the literature as well as the benefits that it may endow a programmer to carry out development activities.
Maybe I need to clarify the meaning of beauty here. It is not that the book is elaborate in its ornamentation. It's the beauty that stems from clarity. I find O'Reilly books to be the most readable due to their clear typesetting, so to speak.
Furthermore, beauty is subjective to an extent that it is hard to call someone on his aesthetic preferences in the same way you can call him on facts.
I (the author of this review) use Python exclusively (if you don't count specialized and supporting languages).
If you are looking for high-profile users, try Google. Python is one of three "officially supported languages" (the others being C++ and Java; "official" does not mean that other languages are not used!).
I would guess that all other large software houses use Python somehow. Besides being a great language in its own right, it is a great systems/prototyping language! Also, it is perfect if you like to code without undue pain;)
Why is there a rat on the cover of a snake book anyway? Perhaps O'Reilly already used a snake picture on the cover of some other book and they didn't wanted to confuse people by having 2 snake books?
Correct! O'Reily's Programming Python already has a snake! I suppose they decided to go with the snake's food.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the idea of running native code in the browser, but I will be really excited when (if?) this becomes a standard. Ever since the now-defunct NPAPI stopped being the cross-browser solution of choice, we've been in dire need of something that is both native (i.e., not Javascript) and standard (i.e., not Chrome NaCl). Interesting nonetheless!
Plenty of time between now and January 2016 when MS will reject the use of SHA1. I understand that large corporations move slowly, but we have known about SHA1 shortcomings for a while now. I would like to read more about what products are affected, possible attacks in product contexts, and reasons for the long window until retirement! Even Windows 7 mainstream support will end in 2015!
I'm sick and tired of hearing these ignorant generalizations. Surely /. readership is composed of many geeks who get offended if you criticize their text editor, but can't they for once just pick up a book that has nothing to do with computers or Star Trek, so they become nuansed enough to not generalize the actions of some people in Saudi Arabia (yes, not all Saudis agree with their leaders actions), a couple of millions even, to the billion others who don't take that line and don't consider it a part of "sharia law"?
When I lived in Iraq, women were fully involved in society and didn't suffer from these draconian rules. Of course, that was before the born-again-Christian leaders of the US and other "free" western nations destroyed it.
In short, stop the hypocrisy, Saudi Arabia's leadership deserves our criticism. But if you're gonna make statement such as "Islam is terrible", you would have a better chance explaining your bigotry if you were to say "Christianity is terrible" or "the West is terrible" with which I'd take offense as much. It's not Islam that is terrible; It's this line of thinking no matter what religion or non-religion its supporters happens to profess.
...
I'm assuming the chapters are written so that you can "jump-in" without having to follow up the preceding material. I only question this point because the reviewer states: "His ideas flow logically from one to the next, incrementally building a story-like chain of problems and Python solutions."
Your assumption is correct. Naturally, in this class of literature, you expect the ability to random-access what you need. The logical flow refers to cohesive units of text that mostly span one chapter.
Granted, the choice of words is vague and the concept of coverage needs elaboration. Despite the distinction that is often made between the 2.x and 3.x branches, some features appear in minor versions belonging to each of them. Specifically, many of the features that were originally intended for 3.0 were back-ported to 2.6 as described in What's New in Python 3.0. In fact, there are library components in 3.0 that were later deprecated in 3.1!
I suppose I was paraphrasing the author's statement about his attempt to write future-proof code (as much as possible), so that most of the code could run unmodified or with minimal modifications. If you understand coverage as such, then there will be no confusion. However, if you understand coverage as the ability to write code that will readily run on both versions (having been tested on both), then you are right in pointing out the discrepancy.
As to the last comment, I surely did not go through an exhaustive proof-reading of the book à la peer review! I don't know about you, but I don't have that much free time to spare on such an adventure, so no, I didn't go through the 1300-page book, looking closely at the statements and library calls to know which versions of Python it covers (2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, 3.1, or a subset). My aim was to describe the structure of the book and overall place within the literature as well as the benefits that it may endow a programmer to carry out development activities.
Maybe I need to clarify the meaning of beauty here. It is not that the book is elaborate in its ornamentation. It's the beauty that stems from clarity. I find O'Reilly books to be the most readable due to their clear typesetting, so to speak. Furthermore, beauty is subjective to an extent that it is hard to call someone on his aesthetic preferences in the same way you can call him on facts.
I (the author of this review) use Python exclusively (if you don't count specialized and supporting languages). If you are looking for high-profile users, try Google. Python is one of three "officially supported languages" (the others being C++ and Java; "official" does not mean that other languages are not used!). I would guess that all other large software houses use Python somehow. Besides being a great language in its own right, it is a great systems/prototyping language! Also, it is perfect if you like to code without undue pain ;)
Why is there a rat on the cover of a snake book anyway? Perhaps O'Reilly already used a snake picture on the cover of some other book and they didn't wanted to confuse people by having 2 snake books?
Correct! O'Reily's Programming Python already has a snake! I suppose they decided to go with the snake's food.