mention of books & extensions welcome, or...? (was Re: Scripting *of* Python)

[James Kew]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> Is this just an isolated opinion, with most readers still
> welcoming mentions and details about Python books and
> extension packages; or, has comp.lang.python's consensus
> shifted so drastically, so fast, so that such mentions are
> now seen as undesirable "product placement"???

FWIW, I read Nick's comment as tongue-in-cheek.

But to answer your question: I see such recommendations as part of the whole
"Python community" thing. We're lucky to have so many book and packages
authors posting here: and often it's the author of a book or product who is
best placed to comment on its suitability for a particular problem.

I think the community here is pretty good at keeping itself fair and honest:
if someone's project was over-zealously promoted, it'd simply tend to draw
more replies rebutting the claims made and/or suggesting alternatives.

One of the great strengths of Python is the range and quality of third-party
packages: I don't currently use Twisted, Medusa, SimpleParse, Numeric, or
mxDateTime, to name a few, but because of discussions and recommendation in
c.l.p. I know they exist and to which problem domains they're applicable.
That'll save me reinventing the wheel if and when I need the functionality
they provide; and it broadens my "what can Python do" horizons now.

So, no, I don't see a "product placement" problem here: recommendations here
are usually genuine, useful, and interesting. It'd be a duller place if all
we could talk about is the core language and included batteries.

--
James Kew
james.kew at btinternet.com