Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale)
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 16:32:04 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <vafipo$1t54v$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <uvbfii$3mom0$1@news.xmission.com>
	<20240412094809.811@kylheku.com> <87il0mm94y.fsf@tudado.org>
	<way-20240413091747@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
	<87il0lldf8.fsf@tudado.org>
	<choices-20240413123957@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
	<v9lm2k$12qhv$1@dont-email.me> <v9m4gd$14scu$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240815182717.189@kylheku.com> <v9npls$1fjus$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9t204$2dofg$1@dont-email.me> <va28pi$3dldm$1@dont-email.me>
	<va2ro9$3gd7v$1@dont-email.me> <va2vt0$3h3gj$1@dont-email.me>
	<va44tt$3piki$1@dont-email.me> <va4b87$3q4g0$3@dont-email.me>
	<20240821083739.00001553@gmail.com> <va5eie$3vluh$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:32:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="156ab3bd85ae67fe282e3aecf9a0b621";
	logging-data="2004127"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PxExHo2gq2qV84TWUQk65"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eQ1WdM3dc9/ITDy04rKIO6CfQaU=
Bytes: 4150

(Note: I'm not setting Followup-To since I don't know where the
participants are reading this, but do note that I'm only subscribed to
comp.unix.programmer. I will probably subscribe to .shell soon, though.)


On 2024-08-21, David Brown wrote:

> On 21/08/2024 17:37, John Ames wrote:
>> Yes, books can be wrong, and yes, community fora can have valuable
>> information - but there really is no substitute for a good manual, in
>> print or otherwise. StackOverflow is very useful for clearing up some
>> kinds of esoteric-yet-common questions, but if you just need to double-
>> check what the legal values for parameter X in function Y are, it's
>> much quicker (and usually less error-prone) to turn to a reference
>> guide than it is to go poking around looking for records of times in
>> history where someone else might've had the same question.
>>
>> (Doubly so, now that Google is as friggin' useless as it's gotten the
>> last few years.)
>>
>
> I do like a good manual, whether it be a physical book or an online
> manual.  So I am not objecting to reading them, learning from them, or
> using them as references.

I'd say the online manual can be useful as a reference, at least in my
experience with Linux programming. It also has some information on
POSIX. And is local, so can be used even in the absence of a network
connection of any sort.

Do people feel differently about online manuals on other systems? Or are
these usually good to be used as a reference? (Asking out of curiosity,
as I don't have much experience yet coding on environments other than
"GNU/Linux".)

> I am just objecting to the concept that reading particular books is
> somehow "required" in order to write "useful C" or "program for
> Linux". They are neither necessary nor sufficient, especially when
> picking one or two particular books.

But once you start pointing out that there are bad books, doesn't that
also imply that people commenting on which books they found good is
useful, so that one can have an idea of which books to avoid or prefer,
even if some comments end up being subjective to some extent?

(But yes, it might well be the case that someone just can't work so well
with a book as a medium and prefers some other approach. A lot of people
these days are sharing youtube videos as "tutorials" and that's
something I can't easily "consume", so I can kind of imagine what that'd
be like. - Now if only Google had a GET parameter in the web (not video)
search for "do not provide video results. ever."...)

-- 
Nuno Silva