[Tutor] Comments wanted on new Python introduction

[Clay Shirky]

> I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. The folks running the
> Python site can't really be expected to go through every
> tutorial that gets written, they simply note their existence.

Sure, but as the number of tutorials grows, this strategy gets less helpful.

> Even if they did beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.
> When learning Smalltalk I tried 4 different books/tutorials before
> I eventually found one that worked for me.

But if this is the strategy for python.org, why bother with a /learn page at
all? Surely the point of the page is to make recommendations, even if just
implicit ones by excluding most of the written material available on Python.

If you're going to have a page helping people find strategies work for them,
even one sentence about why a certain resource is included would do wonders.

> The only tutorial that could (or should) realistically be
> recommended on the web site is the official one IMHO. Its the
> only one that carries an official stamp and gets updated
> to keep it in step with new releases.

Ah ha!  This is *very* helpful, and in fact, I wish something like this was
on the /learn page:

"The most up to date tutorial for Python is always the the one that included
with the current version of Python. It is the only one that carries an
official stamp and gets updated to keep it in step with new releases." After
that, you could note why the additional tutorials are being included, by
noting what they offer that the tutorial does not.

Even something like that would be a big help.

-clay