On Feb 21, 4:00 pm, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Newbies learn, and the fundamental C++ lessons are usually > > learnt quite easily. > > Ah yes...that would be why Scott Meyers has written three > volumes[1] cataloging the gotchas that even experienced C++ > programmers can make...
Scott Meyers's books don't just catalogue gotcha's, but suggest effective ways to use the language. Moreover their combined word count is probably below the "Python Cookbook"'s one. > And the 1030 page Stroustrup C++ reference is easily comprehended > by the uninitiated[2]. The Python core language is a mere 97 > pgs. The documentation for the *entire* standard library is > about the size of just the C++ Language Reference.[3] A more reasonable comparison would be against the core portion of the C ++ standard. This is still roughly three times the Python Reference Manual. The C++ syntax is way more complex than Python's and mostly due to its C heritage is also often inconsistent. However, despite its apparent semplicity, Python allows extremely advanced programming techniques. I wouldn't be surprised if the proportion of Python programmers that are capable of exploiting the language's full power was comparable to the corresponding proportion of C++ expert programmers. While I find the Python standard library documentation adequate for a free, voluntary effort, I consider it one of the weakest spots of Python as a professional tool. Still comparing its size against Stroustrup's book's is really comparing apples with oranges. > Assembly language is pretty easy to learn too. But is it a > productive use of a programmer's time? Only if it's 1975. It depends on the task at hand. Cheers, Nicola Musatti -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
