Jeremy Jones wrote: > Ed Hotchkiss wrote: > > >>I'm new to Python, not programming. I agree with the point regarding >>the interpreter. what is that? who uses that!? Why are most examples >>like that, rather than executed as .py files? > > > I think showing examples at the Python interpreter prompt is *very* > helpful and IMHO a preferred method in plenty of cases. If I'm showing > someone a piece of code that returns some object the type of which > you're not really that familiar with, would you rather be running it in > a script, or on a command prompt (or, my preference is to either copy > and paste the example to a script an run it with ``python -i`` or paste > it to an edit in IPython)? With IPython (or vanilla Python interpreter > with parse-and-bind tab completion turned on), you can inspect the > object quite easily. Again, IMHO, much easier than from a script. > > >> >>Another problem that I have (which does get annoying after awhile), is >>not using foo and bar. Spam and Eggs sucks. It's not funny, although >>Monty Python does rock. Why not use silly+walks instead. > > > Eh. Life's too short for me to get up in a roar about such as this. > And Python's too good of a language for me to be overly bothered by > example naming conventions. YMMV. > Jim Hugunin's keynote speech at this year's PyCon was accompanied by a projection if his interactive interpreter session, and I know I wasn't alone in finding this a convincing example of Microsoft's (well, Jim's, really) full integration of Python into the .net framework.
Modules are good, but the interactive interpreter is a brilliant way to show off what modules can do. As for "Why not foo and bar rather than spam and eggs?", all I can think of to say is "Get over it". regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.pycon.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
