This simple book is meant to get you started in programming. The title says it's the hard way to learn to write code; but it's actually not. It's only. Learn Python the hard way is one of the best books to learn Python Ebook Learn Python The Hard Way here (file docx) or here (file pdf). Learn Python the Hard Way musicmarkup.info musicmarkup.info Thanks!:) Happy Learning! EDIT This book is an old edition that I.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|ePub File Size:||23.76 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.32 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Visit musicmarkup.info for a complete list of available publications. Learn Python the hard way: a very simple introduction to the terrifyingly beautiful world . This download includes a PDF, paid HTML view you can access from There is a new version of this book called Learn Python 3 The Hard Way which you can. (musicmarkup.info) that will. Learn More Python 3 the Hard Way Programming in Python 3: A Complete Introduction to the Python.
Please read the rules and guidelines below and search before posting. All learning resources are in the wiki: Frequently Asked Questions: Webchat link: Guide on how to join and different IRC clients: Ensure your example is correct.
I don't know, I don't get it, I think I figured out pretty easy, also a lot of beginners I am talking to they don't have the problem, but I get it that for some people can cause frustration. Maybe I'm stupid but I always run into massive problems with unicode and python 2 and I wouldn't consider myself a beginner.
If the beginners you're talking to don't need to handle unicode often, maybe they won't run into the problem. But if your main language isn't English, you're guaranteed to run into troubles really quick.
Also almost anyone I know besides if is a beginner or experienced googles a lot. Python3's range is a generator, Python2's returns a list.
Python2 has a Python3 style range called xrange. With Python3 or xrange , it takes just a few bytes of memory and just a few clock cycles because it evaluates it lazily. Also to add to that example, the expression 4 in range 2, 37, 5 under Python 2 is handled like this:. Meaning, as people we know that 4 is not in that range because that range is something like 2, 7, 12, 17, We know this because that range consists of numbers starting at 2, ending at 37 non-inclusive , and whose constituents are spaced 5 apart.
That is, they are all 2 modulo 5. People that have problem understanding basic loops.
But again we are talking about beginners. They don't explain this stuff to beginners even to university lectures.
And Unicode is a super uber pain in Python 2 for a key important reason, that begining who use console a lot run into: With Python 3, the console default encoding is UTF-8, so everything is consistant. I don't know. I haven't such big trouble dealing with it. I get what you are you saying but I also know a lot of people that didn't have problem with that.
Beginners should learn the range function and the difference between Python 2 and 3 may turn out to be confusing for them.
So it would be better to teach the newer version from the start to avoid subsequent confusion. In any case I can't believe we are seriously still having these kind of discussions. There is absolutely no reason to start learning Python 2 as a beginner. I KNOW!!!!!!! I only posted about one of my favourite courses that updated in Python3. And if you read the comments I have suggested that you should also do at the same time Automate the boring stuff with Python because it's more practical.
Teaching beginners the wrong way straight out of the gate is why we have so much bad and insecure code out there on the internet. Its why we dont have secure coders.
Its why we have security problems, overflows, and breaches. The pacing of content and proper reinforcement learning is what made it stick. I'm glad he's finally given up his silly anti-p3 nonsense and is bringing this material current. Hopefully he will get a good editor on this edition who can help improve his tone so it doesn't end up diluted.
I've been on this page for 15 minutes now trying to come up with something civil to say about Zed Shaw with regards to Python 3, and I'm having some real trouble.
I'll just drop a link to a blog post not mine, for the record refuting a huge rant he put out just a few months ago about how Python 3 is some dark plot. Let's just say that Zed's understanding of general CS concepts or of Python itself doesn't inspire much confidence in his ability to teach the subject.
That's because he's an idiot. He has no business teaching people, and I really think that this sub is doing a disservice to people looking to learn Python by continuing to allow references to his works. I really trying to understand why the hate towards the person.
I keep seeing people hating him and I don't know why. What exactly you mean by saying a dark plot regards Python 3? Python 2. He has an irrational hatred towards Python 3.
Until extremely recently as in the past few weeks, past month or two at best , he absolutely hated Python 3 and refused to teach it. But, further than that, he actively campaigned against it, telling people who read his books to stay far away from it. Here is his actual blog post, dating back to the end of November, Note how recent that was. He got a lot of hate for it, justifiably. See this response to his post to get a quick recap of everything that was wrong or a flat out lie in Zed's post.
Now, people are allowed to hate things if they want, even if its irrational. However, Zed went even further and campaigned against Python 3 quite actively for a long time. This wouldn't be a problem, because people who know a thing about programming or Python can see how wrong he is when he makes up claims about it and then makes up evidence to support them literally this is what he did in the blog post I linked.
However, the problem arises because of his target audience. His target audience are people who are new to programming, people who wouldn't know any better, people who would believe that sort of things. So his campaign at Python 3 was full of blatant lies, but was directed at people who didn't know enough about the subject to know they were lies.
He was directly responsible for who knows how many people avoiding python 3, which only hurt its adoption, even though it is a better language to Python 2 in every way.
For that matter he doesn't seem to understand the reason as to why Python 3 is not backwards compatible with Python 2. And if you don't understand those reasons too complicated to get into here, but a lot of it involved UNICODE support, which Python 2 was just bad at , then why would you think you are qualified to campaign against Python 3?
He spends more time in his books talking down to you instead of teaching you. Again, this style of teaching is fine if you like it, even though it is weird as fuck. But its not fine to waste so much of your teaching materials to not actually teach anything and just belittle someone. He could teach people so much more in the same amount of content if he would just lose his superiority complex and focus on, you know, teaching.
In short, he offers nothing good for the Python community as a whole, since he worked hard for years to slow the adoption of Python 3. He claims that Python 3 will kill the language, but what would really kill it is if python 3 had died like he wanted it to, and Python was left without proper UNICODE support in the 21st century. He's just full of hate and doesn't seem to know anything about Python at all. Ok now I get it. But I didn't make this post for his personality, but about his course and that he updated to python3.
Now if he is cunt, it's not my problem. I don't know it. I don't know him, but I find it totally stupid for someone to try keep people away from Python3.
I mean, what he said to keep people away? His book helped me learn python though, and I actually enjoy his teaching style.
It forced me to look things up on my own and use each lesson as a launchpad for my own experimentation. As a sole tool for learning python, I wouldn't recommend it, but for working on structured exercises while using other resources it's not bad. So to tl;dr the book is somewhat poorly written but suited my learning style. Whether it suits you or not doesn't change the fact that most of the content in his books doesn't actually have anything to do with teaching you Python.
Yeah, I'm not arguing that, I wouldn't say 'most' of the content is like that though. It mostly code snippets and explanation peppered with snarky comments. LPTHW is not a good learning resource. He literally spends more time insulting you than teaching you.
If you like that its fine, but still most of the content in his books don't have anything to do with teaching you Python. Add onto that a very illogical structure and its just not a good learning resource period. DiveIntoPython3 is infinitely better. I also found both for free: Then I realised that it was for Python2 and I wanted to learn Python3. Thank you for making a Python3 version.
I just picked up automate the boring stuff. Should I pick this up also and use them together? Do they compliment each other in that way or is it mostly repetitive info taught in different ways? I was gonna start the automate book in a couple of weeks after the MITx 6.
It's taking up a bunch of my time. Actually, I was trying Automate the Boring Stuff, struggled with the language style. I'm funny that way, some books I eat up, others are OK and some I can't get past the first chapter. Any Dummies books I've looked at, I just want to burn.
Were all different. It's still got that super patronizing "I use instruction " line. Ffs, we went to school, we know what it is.
It's not an innovation. I have been using lpthw for a couple weeks now. I have learned a few things but some of the things are lacking in the explanation Dept.
What would be a good resource that doesn't overload you but gives good help besides the Python book dive into Python 3. Also learning to program with Python. Due to the massive amount of hate he's received for the said reasons over many posts, I have not been using his material as a primary source to learn Python but still going over his material as a secondary, skim-through, source to check if I missed any concepts from another angle. I wouldn't tell people to not use his material at all.
All rights reserved. Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit a new text post. Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit. Learning resources All learning resources are in the wiki: Read posting guidelines. Easily googleable questions are not allowed. Posting screenshot of the code is generally not allowed. Insulting will not be tolerated. Reddit rules These apply also on this subreddit. Guidelines Commenting Try to guide OP to a solution instead of providing one directly.
Provide links to related resources. Answer the question and highlight side-issues if any exist. Don't "answer and run", be prepared to respond to follow up questions.
Aside from Go, can you give any other examples? Swift is obviously in the "new language" category more so than Go, anyway , and yet it didn't go down that path. BuckRogers on Feb 25, Well, do your research and come to your own conclusions.
Most people are going to agree that UTF8 is the way to go. You can advocate something else, since you seem to take affront to my opposition to Python3's Microsoft-oriented implementation. If you know anything about Swift, it was designed with a primary goal to being a smooth transition from and interop with ObjC so like other legacy implementations such as CPython3 , it had sacrifices that limited how forward-looking it could be.
But that's completely different and orthogonal to what you're talking about, which is whether strings and byte arrays should be one and the same thing semantically, and represented by the same type, or by compatible types that are used interchangeably.
I want my strings to be strings - that is, an object for which it is guaranteed that enumerating codepoints always succeeds and, consequently, any operation that requires valid codepoints, like e. This is not the case for "just assume a bytearray is UTF-8 if used in string context", which is why I consider this model broken on the abstraction level.
It's kinda similar to languages that don't distinguish between strings and numbers, and interpret any numeric-looking string as number in the appropriate context. And it could probably be changed to use that as the primary canonical representation, only generating other ones if and when they're requested.
Your string type shouldn't be spellchecking nor checking for complete sentences either.
What comes in, comes in. Validate it elsewhere. Thus Go's strings don't potentially fail your desire for a guarantee anymore than anything else would assuming UTF8.
They're unicode-by-default, which was the whole point to Python3 but Go has it too in a more elegant way. If you're expecting bytes it works, if you're expecting unicode codepoints that works. There's no reason to get your hands dirty with encodings unless you need to decode UTF16 etc first.
If there is still a concern about data validation, that's up to you not your string type to throw an exception.
This only works in one direction. Sure, any valid UTF-8 is a bytestring. But not every bytestring is valid UTF I have a problem with that. It's explicitly against the fail-fast design philosophy, whereby invalid input should be detected and acted upon as early as possible.
First, because failing early helps identify the true origin of the error. And second because there's a category of subtle bugs where invalid input can be combined or processed in ways that make it valid-but-nonsensical, and as a result there are no reported errors at all, just quiet incorrect behavior. For languages that use a different encoding, it would mean that ASCII gets re-encoded into whatever the language uses, but this is largely an implementation detail.
Of course, if you're reading a source that is not necessarily in any Unicode encoding UTF-8 or otherwise , and that may be non-string data, and you just need to pass the data through - well then, that's exactly what bytestrings are there for. The fact that you cannot easily mix them with strings again, even if they're UTFencoded is a benefit in this case, because such mixing only makes sense if the bytestring is itself properly encoded.
If it's not, you just silently get garbage. BuckRogers on Feb 25, I understand your position. This is a longstanding debate within the PL community, as you know. I've considered that stance before but I have to say thanks for stating it so well because it's given me pause.