Are these tutorials the best tutorials for learning Python?

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Steve D'Aprano
<steve+python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:12 pm, Chris Warrick wrote:
>
>> So, I started by writing my opinion of those recommendations, and that
>> the “community” is very small (<1k Twitter followers, 2.7k Facebook
>> likes). But then I went to the “About Us” page, and found your name
>> and your profile picture there. Native advertising is evil and rude.
>> You made it sound as if you were an user, genuinely looking for help
>> in learning Python. But in reality, you just want people to visit your
>> website, get ad revenue and potentially get people to join your
>> community.
>>
>> Shame on you.
>
> Why is this shameful? Why shouldn't people make money from their Python
> expertise, if they can? Do you oppose people who get paid to program in Python?

The shameful part is the deception. Or rather, the perceived
deception; the OP sent a second post which correctly acknowledged the
association. Unfortunately, people who use Google Groups think that
the way to correct an error is to delete the post and put up a new
one, which is IMO wrong even in a web forum; it's frankly ridiculous
on a newsgroup or mailing list. But had that info been sent as a
proper follow-up/reply, I don't think anyone would have considered it
shameful.

There's nothing wrong with making money from Python expertise. There's
plenty wrong with lying about what you're making money from. "Hey,
check out this book I wrote about Python - it's on Amazon for $1.99 or
$11.99" is fine; "Hey, everyone, tell me if this is a good book" and
pretending you want third-party reviews is not.

ChrisA