Well I saw Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby and decided I wanted to waste my time writing a non-sensical pseudo-textbook that doesn't really teach anything. I'm thinking of doing this with Python, thinking of "Learning FIOC" as the title.
>>2
That doesn't matter, though I'm not sure if I should keep referring to Python throughout the whole book as FIOC or leave it only in the title. And maybe I can find something displaying some wit later.
I have tried reading ``Programming Python, 4th ed.'' by Mark Lulz, but he failed to adhere to PEP-0008 after almost a decade of it being published and accepted by the Python community. I ended up throwing this piece of garbage away.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-12 10:41
Oh dog I use 2.x but now that I'm writing a pseudotextbook should I be doing it with 3.x? I mean, I'd have to learn it first of course which would complicate things...
>>36
2 is terrible and you should learn 3. It fixed a lot of things in 2 that I was astonished were even allowed to happen.
Learning a new language isn't hard when you already know most of it, or even if you know other languages.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-14 17:12
>>37
Didn't 3 neuter functional programming in Python?
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-14 17:21
FIOC is shit. You shouldn't use it, if only to avoid being associated with those who do.