Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #17597 > unrolled thread

Learning Python 2.4

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Learning Python 2.4 kimma <kimma77@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 19:31 +0100
    Re: Learning Python 2.4 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 12:47 -0700
    Re: Learning Python 2.4 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-12-20 20:21 +0000
    Re: Learning Python 2.4 Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 16:31 -0800
      Re: Learning Python 2.4 Ashton Fagg <ashton@fagg.id.au> - 2011-12-21 12:13 +1000
        Re: Learning Python 2.4 Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 18:50 -0800
          Re: Learning Python 2.4 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-21 14:41 +1100
        Re: Learning Python 2.4 DJC <djc@news.invalid> - 2011-12-21 10:06 +0000
          Re: Learning Python 2.4 Ashton Fagg <ashton@fagg.id.au> - 2011-12-21 22:16 +1000
      Re: Learning Python 2.4 Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2011-12-21 08:46 -0500
    Re: Learning Python 2.4 Maverick JS <mavjs01@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 17:42 -0800
    Re: Learning Python 2.4 Andreas Perstinger <andreas.perstinger@gmx.net> - 2011-12-21 18:42 +0100

#17597 — Learning Python 2.4

Hi there,

I am about to learn python with "how to think like a computer 
scientist". This book is just available for python 2.4. Does it matter 
for programming?

Greetz

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17605

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM, kimma <kimma77@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am about to learn python with "how to think like a computer scientist".
> This book is just available for python 2.4. Does it matter for programming?
>
> Greetz

Python 2.4 is pretty old at this point.  A lot has been added to the
language since then, and Python 3 introduced a number of large,
backward-incompatible changes.  I don't have any specific book
recommendations, but you should look for a book written for Python 3
if possible, since that is the future of Python.  If not, then look
for something that at least targets Python 2.6, which I would expect
to include sections about coding with an eye toward Python 3
compatibility.

Cheers,
Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17609

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:31:56 +0100, kimma wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> I am about to learn python with "how to think like a computer
> scientist". This book is just available for python 2.4. Does it matter
> for programming?

Python 2.4 is pretty old, and missing a lot of really cool features that 
came out in 2.5 and above. Having tried to support 2.4 through 2.7 in one 
code base, I can tell you that the features missing from 2.4 really hurt.

But for just learning the language basics, 2.4 should be fine.

Just make sure you use one of the 2.x series Pythons (that is, 2.4 up to 
2.7) and NOT Python 3. Python 3 intentionally breaks some backwards 
compatibility in ways that will confuse a beginner to the language unless 
you learn from a book designed for Python 3.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17633

On Dec 20, 12:31 pm, kimma <kimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am about to learn python with "how to think like a computer
> scientist". This book is just available for python 2.4. Does it matter
> for programming?
>
> Greetz

Kimma, don't listen to either of these guys. Anything before Python
3.0 is now obsolete. We are currently at 3.2.2 for a stable release.
If a tutorial writer is too lazy to update his tutorial to AT LEAST
Python 3.0, THEN he is a fool and should be banished from not only
this community, but from the Internets also.

The ONLY reason to use any Python version LESS than Python 3.0 is if
you have NO OTHER CHOICE! You don't have that problem kimma because
you are new to Python. You have a choice. And the choice should be the
MOST CURRENT VERSION OF PYTHON.

If, at a later time, you find that you need to use some module that is
not 3.0 compliant, then by all means download the appropriate
interpreter. BUT DON"T WRITE CODE THAT IS NOT 3.0 COMPLIANT UNLESS YOU
HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE!!!

Don't be a part of slowing the transition that is happening with
Python. We need to look forward and forget about the past. The past is
old and dumpy, however, the future is bright!

Good luck!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17639

On 21 December 2011 10:31, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kimma, don't listen to either of these guys. Anything before Python
> 3.0 is now obsolete. We are currently at 3.2.2 for a stable release.
> If a tutorial writer is too lazy to update his tutorial to AT LEAST
> Python 3.0, THEN he is a fool and should be banished from not only
> this community, but from the Internets also.

I got the impression the OP was learning programming in general (i.e.
from scratch) and not merely "learning Python". If this is the case it
shouldn't matter if they're merely learning the concepts as you can
always get up to speed on the differences later on as they get more
experienced.

If they are "learning Python" (i.e. have programmed previously and are
learning this as a new language), learning the basics from the book
would be fine and it shouldn't be too hard to get up to speed on the
newer stuff later on. Although I'd recommend starting on the latest
iteration if possible, as it will alleviate some of the leg work of
catching up on the newer features.

Cheers.


-- 
Ashton Fagg
E-mail: ashton@fagg.id.au
Web: http://www.fagg.id.au/~ashton/

Keep calm and call Batman.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17642

On Dec 20, 8:13 pm, Ashton Fagg <ash...@fagg.id.au> wrote:
> On 21 December 2011 10:31, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I got the impression the OP was learning programming in general (i.e.
> from scratch) and not merely "learning Python". If this is the case it
> shouldn't matter if they're merely learning the concepts as you can
> always get up to speed on the differences later on as they get more
> experienced.

I say that assumption is wrong; read on for details...

> If they are "learning Python" (i.e. have programmed previously and are
> learning this as a new language), learning the basics from the book
> would be fine and it shouldn't be too hard to get up to speed on the
> newer stuff later on. Although I'd recommend starting on the latest
> iteration if possible, as it will alleviate some of the leg work of
> catching up on the newer features.

I don't see how "experienced" or "un-experienced" has anything to do
with this. The fact is... Python 2.4 is dead. Python 2.5 is dead.
Python 2.6 is dead, and yes, even python 2.7 is bereft of life!

The only Python version that matters at this moment in "time space" is
Python 3.2.2. The only exception to that rule is if you need an old
module that 3.0 does not support. AND THAT IS THE ONLY EXCEPTION!

I currently have Python 2.7 and Python 3.2.2 installed on my machine.
I don't use Python 2.7 because i am a member of some secret "Python
Historical Commission", NO. I use Python 2.7 because i have no other
choice. Much of my old code bases requires modules that DO NOT work in
Python 3.0. Some 3rd party devs are even suggesting that they will
NEVER upgrade...HOWEVER... I write ALL new code with Python 3.0
compliance. Anyone who would refuse to use Python 3.0 for new code is
a fool. You may not realize it now, but you will be kicking yourself
later.

There are individual losses and collective losses from each person who
thinks they should keep some old run down building from the wrecking
ball. Progress requires tearing down old, worn out structures, and
replacing them with cleaner, safer, and shiny-er structures.
Structures that are NOT infested with vermin. Structures that are NOT
a fire hazard. Structures that are NOT insulated with asbestos!

Remember, back in the day, asbestos was the "wonder material". Look,
it does not burn! Look, it does not rot! Look, it will even wipe your
back side! <disclaimer>Oh by the way, you might get lung cancer and
die from one breath of it's dust. But no need to worry about that
little hiccup for many years to come.</disclaimer>

Collectively we as a community suffer when even one new lad chooses to
use an old version of Python. Why? Because that is one less person
pushing the masses of 3rd party developers to get off their lazy bums
and upgrade to 3000 compliance.

Avoid Python<3.X like the plague -- and stop propagating stagnation!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17643

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I currently have Python 2.7 and Python 3.2.2 installed on my machine.
> I don't use Python 2.7 because i am a member of some secret "Python
> Historical Commission"

Shun 3.2.2, it's way too old. The ONLY version of Python worth using
is the bleeding-edge from source control! Otherwise you ARE on the
Historical Commission.

Seriously... to the OP, ignore Rick's doom-and-gloom about old
Pythons. If you have a book that teaches 2.4, you can almost certainly
use what it teaches with a more recent 2.X interpreter (eg 2.7.2). You
may have problems trying to use that book with a 3.X interpreter,
though.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17652

On 21/12/11 02:13, Ashton Fagg wrote:

> I got the impression the OP was learning programming in general (i.e.
> from scratch) and not merely "learning Python". If this is the case it
> shouldn't matter if they're merely learning the concepts as you can
> always get up to speed on the differences later on as they get more
> experienced.

In which case the most important thing is the quality of the book as a
text on Programming. If you find the the author's style to your taste,
then use that book rather than struggle with a text based on a recent
version that you personally find unreadable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17668

On 21 December 2011 20:06, DJC <djc@news.invalid> wrote:
>
> In which case the most important thing is the quality of the book as a
> text on Programming. If you find the the author's style to your taste,
> then use that book rather than struggle with a text based on a recent
> version that you personally find unreadable.

This is very good advice.

-- 
Ashton Fagg
E-mail: ashton@fagg.id.au
Web: http://www.fagg.id.au/~ashton/

Keep calm and call Batman.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17662

On 12/20/11 7:31 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Anything before Python
> 3.0 is now obsolete. We are currently at 3.2.2 for a stable release.

2.7 is still a supported production release of Python. It has not been 
end-of-lifed.

-- 
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17637

I'd recommend starting with http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/ by "Zed Shaw" or Beginning Python Using Python 2.6 and Python 3.1 by "James Payne"

I'd say learning Python 2.6 would be better than 2.4, since it's really old.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17679

On 2011-12-20 19:31, kimma wrote:
> I am about to learn python with "how to think like a computer
> scientist". This book is just available for python 2.4. Does it matter
> for programming?

There is also a online-version for Python 3 but there are some differences:
http://openbookproject.net/thinkcs/python/english3e/preface3-rle.html

Bye, Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web