python is hard to learn without c

[Bijan Parsia]

Tim Rowe <digitig at cix.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <9yS15.2877$Gp6.138923 at dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, 
> jin.choung at gte.net (Jin) wrote:
> 
> > but i think the reason the C++ book is working so well for me is that it
> > assumes nothing about prior knowledge in an OO language because C++ is
> > the
> > base upon which everything else is built.  
> 
> Oh no it's not! C++ drew on earlier OO languages, and there are plenty
> (Scheme, Eiffel, Smalltalk) that are quite unrelated.

Indeed! Thank goodness!

Another point, there are many different things one might expect out of a
book entitled *Learning Python* (or *Learning Foo*); here are some of
the broader classes:

        1) Learning Python while/as a means to learning *programming in
                general* given *no prior experience with programming*.
        2) Learning Python while/as a means to learning *OOP in
                general* given *no prior experience with OOP*, but 
                some experience with *programming*.
        3) Learning Python as yet another oop language under your belt.

Books which do a good job of meeting an expectation which falls under
one of these classes might well do a terrible job meeting other types.

The most reasonable assumption you can make about why a book makes
assumptions about prior knowledge is that it intended to meet one (or
more) of these classes of expectation. (Or others!)

-- 
Bijan Parsia
http://monkeyfist.com/
...among many things.