On Tuesday, August 08, 2017 08:58:04 PM Ole Streicher wrote:
> Diane Trout <di...@ghic.org> writes:
> >> What I am opposing is the suggestion to install, in the near to
> >> medium
> >> term, a command of exactly the same name that has subtly similar but
> >> incompatible behaviour, when that behaviour *already* has a command –
> >> ‘python3’ – that is widely used by those who need it.
> > 
> > my problem with that plan is all of the printed documentation saying to
> > learn python, type "python".
> All *actual* printed documentation? Which refers to Python 3? Could you
> give an example here?
> Otherwise, (if using a Python 2 book), one of the next steps would be
> "print 'hello world'", and nothing would prevent from the horrible
> experience that the book is outdated anyway.
> Sorry, I don't see the problem with "printed documentation".

Having recently (late last year) searched for a beginner's Python book for one 
of my kids, I can tell you that current offers range between "Only a few 
people use Python 3, so you're better off ignoring this odd duck while you 
learn" to "Python 3 is the future, so you may as well start be learning the 
future rather than the past".  I don't recall any current books that didn't at 
least acknowledge the existence of this Python 3 thing.

Based on that (admittedly incomplete) survey, I think confusion about the 
existence of Python/Python 3 is a problem with current dead tree learning 
Python editions.  If you're trying to learn something new with old 
documentation, I don't think it should be surprising there are a few bumps 
along the way.

I agree.

Scott K

Reply via email to