|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
title = "Python Playground: Geeky Projects for the Curious Programmer - Mahesh Venkitachalam"
|
|
|
|
|
date = 2016-10-12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[taxonomies]
|
|
|
|
|
tags = ["books", "mahesh venkitachalam", "reviews", "python", "it", "2 stars"]
|
|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[GoodReads Summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22978167-python-playground):
|
|
|
|
|
Python is a powerful programming language that's easy to learn and fun to play
|
|
|
|
|
with. But once you've gotten a handle on the basics, what do you do next?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- more -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ stars(stars=2) }}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I start to not get a book, one thing I ask myself is: Am I the target
|
|
|
|
|
audience for this book? 'Cause, you know, I may need to reflect if the book is
|
|
|
|
|
actually good for beginners instead of people who already know the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And here is the problem with this book: it does a bad job finding its target.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason is simple: the code is full of violations of PEP8, something Python
|
|
|
|
|
beginners should not be exposed to and something expert developers get pissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, there is nothing wrong with your weekend projects to not follow standards
|
|
|
|
|
-- that's perfectly acceptable. But when you have your code published in a
|
|
|
|
|
book, you must, at least, follow the general guidelines that the community
|
|
|
|
|
follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But let's throw this out of the window: is the book "good"? The answer is
|
|
|
|
|
mostly "well...". It's not bad, but it isn't really interesting. It is merely
|
|
|
|
|
ok.
|
