http://perpetual.education is a design/programming school. We like to be part of the discussion over here at Dev.to / We have time-slots for free conversations for career advice IRL : )
Looks like a cool set of articles! It's a little disconcerting when you say "dead simple" and the first step is "1: Virtual Environments and pip."
If we were to write "Dead simple JS" - we could just write it right in the console, which is nice. It's seems pretty dead simple already / if people would just let it be.
The idea behind the name is the same as with the Pythonic concept of "Obvious": it doesn't seem simple or obvious when you're looking into the topic, but once you're on the other side, it feels so simple that you wonder how it ever didn't make sense. The idea is really to give you a solid grasp of how to write idiomatic, or "Pythonic", code.
The trouble with the over-simplified approach is that, as soon as you try to do anything meaningful, those clever shortcuts most articles leverage turn into massive obstacles. Dead Simple Python braves the deeper complexities of the language; by time you resurface, the topic is no longer obtuse or terrifying, and you actually understand why those shortcuts worked (and didn't work) to begin with.
http://perpetual.education is a design/programming school. We like to be part of the discussion over here at Dev.to / We have time-slots for free conversations for career advice IRL : )
It seems like a great way to learn - if you've already learned 'programming' and the design-thinking behind that - and now you want to add Python to your tool belt. Not sure that we can agree that is what 'dead simple means' though.
Precisely my point, especially with the book. There are already a billion "Python for beginners" books and tutorials, but virtually nothing for existing developers.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Looks like a cool set of articles! It's a little disconcerting when you say "dead simple" and the first step is "1: Virtual Environments and pip."
If we were to write "Dead simple JS" - we could just write it right in the console, which is nice. It's seems pretty dead simple already / if people would just let it be.
"Dead Simple" doesn't mean what you think. ;-)
The idea behind the name is the same as with the Pythonic concept of "Obvious": it doesn't seem simple or obvious when you're looking into the topic, but once you're on the other side, it feels so simple that you wonder how it ever didn't make sense. The idea is really to give you a solid grasp of how to write idiomatic, or "Pythonic", code.
The trouble with the over-simplified approach is that, as soon as you try to do anything meaningful, those clever shortcuts most articles leverage turn into massive obstacles. Dead Simple Python braves the deeper complexities of the language; by time you resurface, the topic is no longer obtuse or terrifying, and you actually understand why those shortcuts worked (and didn't work) to begin with.
It seems like a great way to learn - if you've already learned 'programming' and the design-thinking behind that - and now you want to add Python to your tool belt. Not sure that we can agree that is what 'dead simple means' though.
Precisely my point, especially with the book. There are already a billion "Python for beginners" books and tutorials, but virtually nothing for existing developers.