<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_1430219</id>
	<title>Learning Python, 4th Edition</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1266829320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>thatpythonguy writes <i>"<em>Learning Python</em> is a well-written book by an experienced Python trainer that has served the Python community well since the first edition was published in 1999. Now, at its fourth edition, this book by Mark Lutz arguably continues to be Python's bible."</i> Read on for the rest of Ahmed's review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>thatpythonguy writes " Learning Python is a well-written book by an experienced Python trainer that has served the Python community well since the first edition was published in 1999 .
Now , at its fourth edition , this book by Mark Lutz arguably continues to be Python 's bible .
" Read on for the rest of Ahmed 's review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thatpythonguy writes "Learning Python is a well-written book by an experienced Python trainer that has served the Python community well since the first edition was published in 1999.
Now, at its fourth edition, this book by Mark Lutz arguably continues to be Python's bible.
" Read on for the rest of Ahmed's review.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236854</id>
	<title>Re:Better Than First Edition?</title>
	<author>mindcorrosive</author>
	<datestamp>1266836460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Endless bits about immutability, without hints as to why I ought to care.  I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now, but to start with it seems<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... strange.</p></div><p>The thing about mutability in Python is that it can bite you in the neck if you assume the variable passing and assignment work as in some other popular languages. I can appreciate the author's tirades about this, as he brought his point around, even with simple examples. And how do you propose to start with a language that doesn't have one-IDE-to-rule-them-all, like Visual Studio or Eclipse? You know how sparse is IDLE by today's standards.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Little discussion of how you might have accomplished tasks in other languages and wish to do the Pythonic equivalent.</p>  </div><p>That's why there's this other book, "Programming Python", again by Lutz, where he discusses the practical aspects of Python programming, and using the standard library modules. There are examples of the "Pythonic" way to do this or that, instead of masking C/C++ syntax with Python expressions. The discussions of modules, packages and classes is extensive, and down to the details of how they work and are used.</p><p>I understand your frustration, and can't comment on the first edition that you've seen. I've preordered the fourth edition - this one - (the whole 1000 or so pages), and I found it a very good self-educational tool - I managed to learn most of the ins-and-outs of the language in just one week, without having prior exposure to Python (I've got experience with 3-4 other programming languages, admittedly). I'd recommend it highly for anyone that wants to learn Python (the language) quickly.</p><p>Of course, this is my opinion, so take it as you may.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Endless bits about immutability , without hints as to why I ought to care .
I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now , but to start with it seems ... strange.The thing about mutability in Python is that it can bite you in the neck if you assume the variable passing and assignment work as in some other popular languages .
I can appreciate the author 's tirades about this , as he brought his point around , even with simple examples .
And how do you propose to start with a language that does n't have one-IDE-to-rule-them-all , like Visual Studio or Eclipse ?
You know how sparse is IDLE by today 's standards .
Little discussion of how you might have accomplished tasks in other languages and wish to do the Pythonic equivalent .
That 's why there 's this other book , " Programming Python " , again by Lutz , where he discusses the practical aspects of Python programming , and using the standard library modules .
There are examples of the " Pythonic " way to do this or that , instead of masking C/C + + syntax with Python expressions .
The discussions of modules , packages and classes is extensive , and down to the details of how they work and are used.I understand your frustration , and ca n't comment on the first edition that you 've seen .
I 've preordered the fourth edition - this one - ( the whole 1000 or so pages ) , and I found it a very good self-educational tool - I managed to learn most of the ins-and-outs of the language in just one week , without having prior exposure to Python ( I 've got experience with 3-4 other programming languages , admittedly ) .
I 'd recommend it highly for anyone that wants to learn Python ( the language ) quickly.Of course , this is my opinion , so take it as you may .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Endless bits about immutability, without hints as to why I ought to care.
I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now, but to start with it seems ... strange.The thing about mutability in Python is that it can bite you in the neck if you assume the variable passing and assignment work as in some other popular languages.
I can appreciate the author's tirades about this, as he brought his point around, even with simple examples.
And how do you propose to start with a language that doesn't have one-IDE-to-rule-them-all, like Visual Studio or Eclipse?
You know how sparse is IDLE by today's standards.
Little discussion of how you might have accomplished tasks in other languages and wish to do the Pythonic equivalent.
That's why there's this other book, "Programming Python", again by Lutz, where he discusses the practical aspects of Python programming, and using the standard library modules.
There are examples of the "Pythonic" way to do this or that, instead of masking C/C++ syntax with Python expressions.
The discussions of modules, packages and classes is extensive, and down to the details of how they work and are used.I understand your frustration, and can't comment on the first edition that you've seen.
I've preordered the fourth edition - this one - (the whole 1000 or so pages), and I found it a very good self-educational tool - I managed to learn most of the ins-and-outs of the language in just one week, without having prior exposure to Python (I've got experience with 3-4 other programming languages, admittedly).
I'd recommend it highly for anyone that wants to learn Python (the language) quickly.Of course, this is my opinion, so take it as you may.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237982</id>
	<title>Wear gloves.</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1266841020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carpet pythons, like I own, are bitey bastards. I hope whatever python you learn about in this book is a little more friendly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carpet pythons , like I own , are bitey bastards .
I hope whatever python you learn about in this book is a little more friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carpet pythons, like I own, are bitey bastards.
I hope whatever python you learn about in this book is a little more friendly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242122</id>
	<title>Re:Too wordy</title>
	<author>fredrik70</author>
	<datestamp>1266919140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>believe that book is for ppl learning programming. the book you REALLY want is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Python-Essential-Reference-David-Beazley/dp/0672329786/ref=dp\_ob\_title\_bk" title="amazon.com">this one</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>believe that book is for ppl learning programming .
the book you REALLY want is this one [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>believe that book is for ppl learning programming.
the book you REALLY want is this one [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564</id>
	<title>Too wordy</title>
	<author>milgr</author>
	<datestamp>1266835680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought this book about a month ago.  I had my doubts about a book this size, and my doubts were realized.</p><p>I learned C from K&amp;R first edition.  K&amp;R is about 150 pages (from memory).  It covers all of the language succinctly and completely.  Actually, it covers most of the language twice - first in tutorial form then in specification form.  It is a fine resource.</p><p>Why should a book on Python be over 1000 pages?  I started reading this book the same way I read K&amp;R - from the beginning.  Unlike K&amp;R, after 50 pages I barely got to coding.  Within each section the language is quite verbose.  I suspect that the authors were paid by the word or the page.</p><p>On a positive note, I was able to use this book as a reference book as the index is quite reasonable.</p><p>I would recommend this book to those insomniacs who are interested in learning Python.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought this book about a month ago .
I had my doubts about a book this size , and my doubts were realized.I learned C from K&amp;R first edition .
K&amp;R is about 150 pages ( from memory ) .
It covers all of the language succinctly and completely .
Actually , it covers most of the language twice - first in tutorial form then in specification form .
It is a fine resource.Why should a book on Python be over 1000 pages ?
I started reading this book the same way I read K&amp;R - from the beginning .
Unlike K&amp;R , after 50 pages I barely got to coding .
Within each section the language is quite verbose .
I suspect that the authors were paid by the word or the page.On a positive note , I was able to use this book as a reference book as the index is quite reasonable.I would recommend this book to those insomniacs who are interested in learning Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought this book about a month ago.
I had my doubts about a book this size, and my doubts were realized.I learned C from K&amp;R first edition.
K&amp;R is about 150 pages (from memory).
It covers all of the language succinctly and completely.
Actually, it covers most of the language twice - first in tutorial form then in specification form.
It is a fine resource.Why should a book on Python be over 1000 pages?
I started reading this book the same way I read K&amp;R - from the beginning.
Unlike K&amp;R, after 50 pages I barely got to coding.
Within each section the language is quite verbose.
I suspect that the authors were paid by the word or the page.On a positive note, I was able to use this book as a reference book as the index is quite reasonable.I would recommend this book to those insomniacs who are interested in learning Python.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237182</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>clampolo</author>
	<datestamp>1266837600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, for Javascript they had a rhino.  And then for Learning Javascript they had a baby rhino which I thought was pretty clever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , for Javascript they had a rhino .
And then for Learning Javascript they had a baby rhino which I thought was pretty clever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, for Javascript they had a rhino.
And then for Learning Javascript they had a baby rhino which I thought was pretty clever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31241036</id>
	<title>Python Essential Reference</title>
	<author>Mike610544</author>
	<datestamp>1266863160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had the first edition of the Learning Python book and didn't find it that useful. The old 1.5 version of <a href="http://books.slashdot.org/story/10/01/20/1431242/Python-Essential-Reference-4th-Ed?from=rss&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+Slashdot\%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)" title="slashdot.org">Python Essential Reference</a> [slashdot.org] was way better. Even being new to programming, I found it very readable. I expect the new versions are just as good. It's clear and concise; the chapter on classes is 6 pages, but taught me everything I needed to know. It's one of the few dead tree resources that I still refer to. From total noob to 10 year veteran that book's served me well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the first edition of the Learning Python book and did n't find it that useful .
The old 1.5 version of Python Essential Reference [ slashdot.org ] was way better .
Even being new to programming , I found it very readable .
I expect the new versions are just as good .
It 's clear and concise ; the chapter on classes is 6 pages , but taught me everything I needed to know .
It 's one of the few dead tree resources that I still refer to .
From total noob to 10 year veteran that book 's served me well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the first edition of the Learning Python book and didn't find it that useful.
The old 1.5 version of Python Essential Reference [slashdot.org] was way better.
Even being new to programming, I found it very readable.
I expect the new versions are just as good.
It's clear and concise; the chapter on classes is 6 pages, but taught me everything I needed to know.
It's one of the few dead tree resources that I still refer to.
From total noob to 10 year veteran that book's served me well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266836700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found Python to be a useful language for scripting and accessing C libraries.
</p><p>
One of the things I like most about it (and others seem to hate) is that it's sensitive to whitespace. This feature has the side effect of making the language more readable and forcing people to indent their code. After programming in Perl, did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago? I find that my year-old Python programs to be much more readable than my year-old Perl.
</p><p>
Also, if you're a scientist or engineer, I recommend "Python Scripting for Computational Science". It will get you programming much earlier than Learning Python and is oriented toward mathematical calculation and visualization problems. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found Python to be a useful language for scripting and accessing C libraries .
One of the things I like most about it ( and others seem to hate ) is that it 's sensitive to whitespace .
This feature has the side effect of making the language more readable and forcing people to indent their code .
After programming in Perl , did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago ?
I find that my year-old Python programs to be much more readable than my year-old Perl .
Also , if you 're a scientist or engineer , I recommend " Python Scripting for Computational Science " .
It will get you programming much earlier than Learning Python and is oriented toward mathematical calculation and visualization problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found Python to be a useful language for scripting and accessing C libraries.
One of the things I like most about it (and others seem to hate) is that it's sensitive to whitespace.
This feature has the side effect of making the language more readable and forcing people to indent their code.
After programming in Perl, did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago?
I find that my year-old Python programs to be much more readable than my year-old Perl.
Also, if you're a scientist or engineer, I recommend "Python Scripting for Computational Science".
It will get you programming much earlier than Learning Python and is oriented toward mathematical calculation and visualization problems. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237144</id>
	<title>JS vs. Lua</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1266837480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>JavaScript is such a hack, and such a pathetic excuse for even a scripting language.</p></div><p>What makes JavaScript so much more of a hack than Lua? Both use prototype-based object systems. Perhaps your complaint is with the HTML DOM, but that would be the same whether you used Lua, Python, or JavaScript on top of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>JavaScript is such a hack , and such a pathetic excuse for even a scripting language.What makes JavaScript so much more of a hack than Lua ?
Both use prototype-based object systems .
Perhaps your complaint is with the HTML DOM , but that would be the same whether you used Lua , Python , or JavaScript on top of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JavaScript is such a hack, and such a pathetic excuse for even a scripting language.What makes JavaScript so much more of a hack than Lua?
Both use prototype-based object systems.
Perhaps your complaint is with the HTML DOM, but that would be the same whether you used Lua, Python, or JavaScript on top of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235700</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how much stock does Samzenpus own in O'Reilly?  Nice Slashvertisement otherwise.
<br> <br>
I'll believe it is not a Slashvertisement the moment there is a negative review about why a book was not worthwhile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how much stock does Samzenpus own in O'Reilly ?
Nice Slashvertisement otherwise .
I 'll believe it is not a Slashvertisement the moment there is a negative review about why a book was not worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how much stock does Samzenpus own in O'Reilly?
Nice Slashvertisement otherwise.
I'll believe it is not a Slashvertisement the moment there is a negative review about why a book was not worthwhile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238198</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1266842220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that is the book I'd (very highly) recommend for experienced programmers new to Python.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is the book I 'd ( very highly ) recommend for experienced programmers new to Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is the book I'd (very highly) recommend for experienced programmers new to Python.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235976</id>
	<title>Monty</title>
	<author>ulski</author>
	<datestamp>1266833820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Woman: Well there's rat cake<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... rat sorbet... rat pudding... or strawberry tart.<br>
Man: Strawberry tart?!<br>
Woman: Well it's got some rat in it.<br>
Man: How much?<br>
Woman: Three, rather a lot really.<br>
Man:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, I'll have a slice without so much rat in it.<br> <br>

Why is there a rat on the cover of a snake book anyway? Perhaps O'Reilly already used a snake picture on the cover of some other book and they didn't wanted to confuse people by having 2 snake books?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Woman : Well there 's rat cake ... rat sorbet... rat pudding... or strawberry tart .
Man : Strawberry tart ? !
Woman : Well it 's got some rat in it .
Man : How much ?
Woman : Three , rather a lot really .
Man : ... well , I 'll have a slice without so much rat in it .
Why is there a rat on the cover of a snake book anyway ?
Perhaps O'Reilly already used a snake picture on the cover of some other book and they did n't wanted to confuse people by having 2 snake books ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woman: Well there's rat cake ... rat sorbet... rat pudding... or strawberry tart.
Man: Strawberry tart?!
Woman: Well it's got some rat in it.
Man: How much?
Woman: Three, rather a lot really.
Man: ... well, I'll have a slice without so much rat in it.
Why is there a rat on the cover of a snake book anyway?
Perhaps O'Reilly already used a snake picture on the cover of some other book and they didn't wanted to confuse people by having 2 snake books?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237778</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1266840060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general/#why-is-it-called-python" title="python.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general/#why-is-it-called-python</a> [python.org]

It's not named after that nasty snake thing. so no snake on the cover is good.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.python.org/doc/faq/general/ # why-is-it-called-python [ python.org ] It 's not named after that nasty snake thing .
so no snake on the cover is good .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general/#why-is-it-called-python [python.org]

It's not named after that nasty snake thing.
so no snake on the cover is good.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236950</id>
	<title>Re:JavaScript is the language of the day today.</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1266836700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that depends on whether you consider "requires the user to install one plugin once, for every site" constitutes "in the browser", since I'm pretty sure that's the present state of affairs on Mozilla, at least.  Whether there's a browser-side plugin for python on IE, I don't know; I avoid IE whenever possible.  Since I'm the IT director, it's *always* possible.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that depends on whether you consider " requires the user to install one plugin once , for every site " constitutes " in the browser " , since I 'm pretty sure that 's the present state of affairs on Mozilla , at least .
Whether there 's a browser-side plugin for python on IE , I do n't know ; I avoid IE whenever possible .
Since I 'm the IT director , it 's * always * possible .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that depends on whether you consider "requires the user to install one plugin once, for every site" constitutes "in the browser", since I'm pretty sure that's the present state of affairs on Mozilla, at least.
Whether there's a browser-side plugin for python on IE, I don't know; I avoid IE whenever possible.
Since I'm the IT director, it's *always* possible.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238980</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't we all supposed to be switching to Lua n</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1266846960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw that - go with D. Performance *and* syntactical sugar. Two great tastes that taste great together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw that - go with D. Performance * and * syntactical sugar .
Two great tastes that taste great together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw that - go with D. Performance *and* syntactical sugar.
Two great tastes that taste great together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31240428</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266857040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After programming in Perl, did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago? I find that my year-old Python programs to be much more readable than my year-old Perl.</p> </div><p>Perhaps you should have left some useful comments. I comment the living shit out of my perl code, and therefore there is only dead shit in it, that which I wrote into it by accident. But seriously, I've gone back and reused perl code every time I could still find it when I thought I might need it. And really, I am not much of a programmer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After programming in Perl , did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago ?
I find that my year-old Python programs to be much more readable than my year-old Perl .
Perhaps you should have left some useful comments .
I comment the living shit out of my perl code , and therefore there is only dead shit in it , that which I wrote into it by accident .
But seriously , I 've gone back and reused perl code every time I could still find it when I thought I might need it .
And really , I am not much of a programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After programming in Perl, did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago?
I find that my year-old Python programs to be much more readable than my year-old Perl.
Perhaps you should have left some useful comments.
I comment the living shit out of my perl code, and therefore there is only dead shit in it, that which I wrote into it by accident.
But seriously, I've gone back and reused perl code every time I could still find it when I thought I might need it.
And really, I am not much of a programmer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237190</id>
	<title>That's not quite the python bible.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266837660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Python-2-1-Bible-Dave-Brueck/dp/0764548077" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow"> This is</a> [amazon.com]. Don't confuse people. Its also not the idiot's guide, for dummies.
<br> <br>
I understand its a figure of speech, but its not a very good one and may confuse people with a different product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is [ amazon.com ] .
Do n't confuse people .
Its also not the idiot 's guide , for dummies .
I understand its a figure of speech , but its not a very good one and may confuse people with a different product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is [amazon.com].
Don't confuse people.
Its also not the idiot's guide, for dummies.
I understand its a figure of speech, but its not a very good one and may confuse people with a different product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236776</id>
	<title>Re:Too wordy</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1266836220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems people have a great deal of problems documenting object oriented languages, IMO.</p><p>The C book is simple and straightforward because C is simple and straightforward by comparison; you don't get lists and dictionaries and so forth in C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems people have a great deal of problems documenting object oriented languages , IMO.The C book is simple and straightforward because C is simple and straightforward by comparison ; you do n't get lists and dictionaries and so forth in C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems people have a great deal of problems documenting object oriented languages, IMO.The C book is simple and straightforward because C is simple and straightforward by comparison; you don't get lists and dictionaries and so forth in C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236010</id>
	<title>JavaScript is the language of the day today.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, JavaScript seems to have become the fad language lately.</p><p>A lot of people who can only handle front-end web development thought Ruby would let them do something a bit more serious, so it had a pretty large hype wave while they were trying it out. But they've found even it too difficult, so they've abandoned server-side work in favor of client-side coding again. Unfortunately, this has to be done in JavaScript, since that's basically the only language supported by all major browsers.</p><p>It's a shame that we don't have Lua or Python in the browser instead of JavaScript. It'd make web development much more efficient. JavaScript is such a hack, and such a pathetic excuse for even a scripting language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , JavaScript seems to have become the fad language lately.A lot of people who can only handle front-end web development thought Ruby would let them do something a bit more serious , so it had a pretty large hype wave while they were trying it out .
But they 've found even it too difficult , so they 've abandoned server-side work in favor of client-side coding again .
Unfortunately , this has to be done in JavaScript , since that 's basically the only language supported by all major browsers.It 's a shame that we do n't have Lua or Python in the browser instead of JavaScript .
It 'd make web development much more efficient .
JavaScript is such a hack , and such a pathetic excuse for even a scripting language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, JavaScript seems to have become the fad language lately.A lot of people who can only handle front-end web development thought Ruby would let them do something a bit more serious, so it had a pretty large hype wave while they were trying it out.
But they've found even it too difficult, so they've abandoned server-side work in favor of client-side coding again.
Unfortunately, this has to be done in JavaScript, since that's basically the only language supported by all major browsers.It's a shame that we don't have Lua or Python in the browser instead of JavaScript.
It'd make web development much more efficient.
JavaScript is such a hack, and such a pathetic excuse for even a scripting language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238492</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've convinced me.  The world only needs two programming languages, and by miraculous coincidence, those two just happen to be The Pair, and anything other than those two is totally superfluous.</p><p>There.  That's what you wanted to hear, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've convinced me .
The world only needs two programming languages , and by miraculous coincidence , those two just happen to be The Pair , and anything other than those two is totally superfluous.There .
That 's what you wanted to hear , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've convinced me.
The world only needs two programming languages, and by miraculous coincidence, those two just happen to be The Pair, and anything other than those two is totally superfluous.There.
That's what you wanted to hear, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239540</id>
	<title>I used the first edition but have Beazley now</title>
	<author>Strange Attractor</author>
	<datestamp>1266850140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned python out of the first edition of Lutz and Ascher.  I just pulled out my copy for the first time in years.  The last page number is 366.  I use Beazley's "Python Essential Reference" almost daily.  Not having taught python and not having learned it twice from two books, I don't have much to say about what would be a better introduction.  I recommend python the language and Beazley's book.  I never found Lutz and Ascher's book (first edition) useful as a reference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned python out of the first edition of Lutz and Ascher .
I just pulled out my copy for the first time in years .
The last page number is 366 .
I use Beazley 's " Python Essential Reference " almost daily .
Not having taught python and not having learned it twice from two books , I do n't have much to say about what would be a better introduction .
I recommend python the language and Beazley 's book .
I never found Lutz and Ascher 's book ( first edition ) useful as a reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned python out of the first edition of Lutz and Ascher.
I just pulled out my copy for the first time in years.
The last page number is 366.
I use Beazley's "Python Essential Reference" almost daily.
Not having taught python and not having learned it twice from two books, I don't have much to say about what would be a better introduction.
I recommend python the language and Beazley's book.
I never found Lutz and Ascher's book (first edition) useful as a reference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31258558</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>firstalliancecu</author>
	<datestamp>1265122320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know an old lady - err,phython
that swallowed a fly-  err, rat...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know an old lady - err,phython that swallowed a fly- err , rat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know an old lady - err,phython
that swallowed a fly-  err, rat...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834</id>
	<title>Cover art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soooo the language is called PYTHON and O'Reilly put some kind of rodent on the cover? Not, I don't know... a python?</p><p>Maybe if the rat was being eaten by a snake it would make sense...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soooo the language is called PYTHON and O'Reilly put some kind of rodent on the cover ?
Not , I do n't know... a python ? Maybe if the rat was being eaten by a snake it would make sense.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soooo the language is called PYTHON and O'Reilly put some kind of rodent on the cover?
Not, I don't know... a python?Maybe if the rat was being eaten by a snake it would make sense...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618</id>
	<title>Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1266835800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When learning languages i completely missed out on Python, i learn't perl and php, java and C and even Occam and Fortran. But no Python, are the any advantages to the snake named language?
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Python\%20programming/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Python Programming</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When learning languages i completely missed out on Python , i lear n't perl and php , java and C and even Occam and Fortran .
But no Python , are the any advantages to the snake named language ?
--- Python Programming [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When learning languages i completely missed out on Python, i learn't perl and php, java and C and even Occam and Fortran.
But no Python, are the any advantages to the snake named language?
---

Python Programming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236154</id>
	<title>First lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a space:<br>This is a tab:<br>Learn to recognize them, you'll be using a language where they're semantic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a space : This is a tab : Learn to recognize them , you 'll be using a language where they 're semantic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a space:This is a tab:Learn to recognize them, you'll be using a language where they're semantic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235974</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1266833820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Soooo the language is called PYTHON and O'Reilly put some kind of rodent on the cover? Not, I don't know... a python?</p></div></blockquote><p>They put a different animal on the cover of each book.</p><p>The python is, IIRC, on the cover of Programming Python.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soooo the language is called PYTHON and O'Reilly put some kind of rodent on the cover ?
Not , I do n't know... a python ? They put a different animal on the cover of each book.The python is , IIRC , on the cover of Programming Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soooo the language is called PYTHON and O'Reilly put some kind of rodent on the cover?
Not, I don't know... a python?They put a different animal on the cover of each book.The python is, IIRC, on the cover of Programming Python.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244320</id>
	<title>Re:Question: Who's making a living coding Python?</title>
	<author>spiralx</author>
	<datestamp>1266939660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first programming job was 100\% Python, writing custom modules for print estimation for clients. My current job I'm doing Python 50\% of the time writing plugins for our XML editor. Which is two jobs out of five.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first programming job was 100 \ % Python , writing custom modules for print estimation for clients .
My current job I 'm doing Python 50 \ % of the time writing plugins for our XML editor .
Which is two jobs out of five .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first programming job was 100\% Python, writing custom modules for print estimation for clients.
My current job I'm doing Python 50\% of the time writing plugins for our XML editor.
Which is two jobs out of five.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242164</id>
	<title>Re:Question: Who's making a living coding Python?</title>
	<author>fredrik70</author>
	<datestamp>1266919680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>these people for example: <a href="http://www.isotoma.com/our-work/expertise/python" title="isotoma.com">http://www.isotoma.com/our-work/expertise/python</a> [isotoma.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>these people for example : http : //www.isotoma.com/our-work/expertise/python [ isotoma.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>these people for example: http://www.isotoma.com/our-work/expertise/python [isotoma.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239868</id>
	<title>Re:Better Than First Edition?</title>
	<author>Cycon</author>
	<datestamp>1266852480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition, although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement. The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half. I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured, "Ah, an O'Reilly book!" Big mistake.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wow, I'm quite surprised actually, I had exactly the opposite experience with the first edition of "Learning Python."
</p><p>
I distinctly remember picking up the book in '99, reading the first three chapters to get introduced to the language basics, then writing my first web-scraper to pull weather forecasts off weather.com and forward them as emails, arriving on my handset as an SMS message (AT&amp;T was running a free email-to-SMS gateway at the time, and didn't charge to receive the messages). I think I skipped ahead to chapter 11 or so to find the code for reading html as text from a URL, as opposed to a local file.
</p><p>
I had never written a tool which perform network lookups and was really impressed with the simplicity of the language and the book. The progression was from the very general to the very specific. The first three chapters were a history and basic introduction to the relatively unique concepts such as whitespace handling and how to deal with strings, as well as how Python handles common stuff like while and for loops. If I recall correctly it stepped into classes and objects after that, then proceed into specific libraries.
</p><p>
I've been doing professional coding in Python ever since, and always recommend "Learning Python" as an introduction to newbies.
</p><p>
My only disappointment in fact was that the size of the book has grown so much in the course of the last few editions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition , although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement .
The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half .
I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured , " Ah , an O'Reilly book !
" Big mistake .
Wow , I 'm quite surprised actually , I had exactly the opposite experience with the first edition of " Learning Python .
" I distinctly remember picking up the book in '99 , reading the first three chapters to get introduced to the language basics , then writing my first web-scraper to pull weather forecasts off weather.com and forward them as emails , arriving on my handset as an SMS message ( AT&amp;T was running a free email-to-SMS gateway at the time , and did n't charge to receive the messages ) .
I think I skipped ahead to chapter 11 or so to find the code for reading html as text from a URL , as opposed to a local file .
I had never written a tool which perform network lookups and was really impressed with the simplicity of the language and the book .
The progression was from the very general to the very specific .
The first three chapters were a history and basic introduction to the relatively unique concepts such as whitespace handling and how to deal with strings , as well as how Python handles common stuff like while and for loops .
If I recall correctly it stepped into classes and objects after that , then proceed into specific libraries .
I 've been doing professional coding in Python ever since , and always recommend " Learning Python " as an introduction to newbies .
My only disappointment in fact was that the size of the book has grown so much in the course of the last few editions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition, although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement.
The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half.
I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured, "Ah, an O'Reilly book!
" Big mistake.
Wow, I'm quite surprised actually, I had exactly the opposite experience with the first edition of "Learning Python.
"

I distinctly remember picking up the book in '99, reading the first three chapters to get introduced to the language basics, then writing my first web-scraper to pull weather forecasts off weather.com and forward them as emails, arriving on my handset as an SMS message (AT&amp;T was running a free email-to-SMS gateway at the time, and didn't charge to receive the messages).
I think I skipped ahead to chapter 11 or so to find the code for reading html as text from a URL, as opposed to a local file.
I had never written a tool which perform network lookups and was really impressed with the simplicity of the language and the book.
The progression was from the very general to the very specific.
The first three chapters were a history and basic introduction to the relatively unique concepts such as whitespace handling and how to deal with strings, as well as how Python handles common stuff like while and for loops.
If I recall correctly it stepped into classes and objects after that, then proceed into specific libraries.
I've been doing professional coding in Python ever since, and always recommend "Learning Python" as an introduction to newbies.
My only disappointment in fact was that the size of the book has grown so much in the course of the last few editions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238328</id>
	<title>The Bible? Bad Analogy...</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1266843060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>O'Reilly "Learning X" (fill in X with your programming language of choice) are not "BIBLE"s. They're learning texts. For the real meat of the language, decent reference and altogether comprehensive understanding of life and the universe, you'd want to pick up O'Reilly "Programming X" books. So in this case, Programming Python would be a Bible, a book you return to again and again. The Programming series of books, for most experienced programmers is generally just as good a place to start learning the language, and you don't need the Learning series.</htmltext>
<tokenext>O'Reilly " Learning X " ( fill in X with your programming language of choice ) are not " BIBLE " s. They 're learning texts .
For the real meat of the language , decent reference and altogether comprehensive understanding of life and the universe , you 'd want to pick up O'Reilly " Programming X " books .
So in this case , Programming Python would be a Bible , a book you return to again and again .
The Programming series of books , for most experienced programmers is generally just as good a place to start learning the language , and you do n't need the Learning series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O'Reilly "Learning X" (fill in X with your programming language of choice) are not "BIBLE"s. They're learning texts.
For the real meat of the language, decent reference and altogether comprehensive understanding of life and the universe, you'd want to pick up O'Reilly "Programming X" books.
So in this case, Programming Python would be a Bible, a book you return to again and again.
The Programming series of books, for most experienced programmers is generally just as good a place to start learning the language, and you don't need the Learning series.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31254078</id>
	<title>Best Python book for n00bs:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266935880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dawson, M. &ldquo;Python Programming for the absolute beginner&rdquo; 2nd edition. ISBN 1-59863-112-8</p><p>Note I said n00bs.</p><p>No, I don't get paid to say this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dawson , M.    Python Programming for the absolute beginner    2nd edition .
ISBN 1-59863-112-8Note I said n00bs.No , I do n't get paid to say this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dawson, M. “Python Programming for the absolute beginner” 2nd edition.
ISBN 1-59863-112-8Note I said n00bs.No, I don't get paid to say this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236944</id>
	<title>And once your brain is fried from coding...</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1266836700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... you can go <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/MontyPython" title="youtube.com">here</a> [youtube.com] and start learning the <em>other</em> Python.</p><p>"I came in here for an argument!"<br>"Oh, oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse."</p><p>You can see I've been studying.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... you can go here [ youtube.com ] and start learning the other Python .
" I came in here for an argument !
" " Oh , oh , I 'm sorry , this is abuse .
" You can see I 've been studying .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you can go here [youtube.com] and start learning the other Python.
"I came in here for an argument!
""Oh, oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse.
"You can see I've been studying.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237302</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266838140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When learning languages i completely missed out on Python, i learn't perl and php, java and C and even Occam and Fortran. But no Python, are the any advantages to the snake named language?</p></div><p>I just had a conversation with a guy I'm stuck working with on a project with. He was ready to consider using any language, as long as it was Python. It didn't seem to matter to him that it is totally unsuited for the task the client has in mind. Python isn't so much a language as it is a religion, kind of like Perl.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When learning languages i completely missed out on Python , i lear n't perl and php , java and C and even Occam and Fortran .
But no Python , are the any advantages to the snake named language ? I just had a conversation with a guy I 'm stuck working with on a project with .
He was ready to consider using any language , as long as it was Python .
It did n't seem to matter to him that it is totally unsuited for the task the client has in mind .
Python is n't so much a language as it is a religion , kind of like Perl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When learning languages i completely missed out on Python, i learn't perl and php, java and C and even Occam and Fortran.
But no Python, are the any advantages to the snake named language?I just had a conversation with a guy I'm stuck working with on a project with.
He was ready to consider using any language, as long as it was Python.
It didn't seem to matter to him that it is totally unsuited for the task the client has in mind.
Python isn't so much a language as it is a religion, kind of like Perl.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239816</id>
	<title>Just wanted to add...</title>
	<author>binary paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1266852180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the 3rd edition when I first started messing with Python and it's a GREAT book.</p><p>In fact, if I was teaching kids to program, this book would be my starting place. It's well written, easy to understand and just a good general introduction to programming in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the 3rd edition when I first started messing with Python and it 's a GREAT book.In fact , if I was teaching kids to program , this book would be my starting place .
It 's well written , easy to understand and just a good general introduction to programming in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the 3rd edition when I first started messing with Python and it's a GREAT book.In fact, if I was teaching kids to program, this book would be my starting place.
It's well written, easy to understand and just a good general introduction to programming in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A python appears on a previous O'Reilly book, "Python in a Nutshell" (ISBN 978-0-596-10046-9).</p><p>My assumption is that they don't use the same animal on more than one cover, correct me if I'm wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A python appears on a previous O'Reilly book , " Python in a Nutshell " ( ISBN 978-0-596-10046-9 ) .My assumption is that they do n't use the same animal on more than one cover , correct me if I 'm wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A python appears on a previous O'Reilly book, "Python in a Nutshell" (ISBN 978-0-596-10046-9).My assumption is that they don't use the same animal on more than one cover, correct me if I'm wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237034</id>
	<title>Re:Too wordy</title>
	<author>stm2</author>
	<datestamp>1266837000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it is because Python has a large standard library (so called batteries included).<br>Regarding paying per page, as a book author I can confirm that you are paid per page only if you accept to typeset the book (with LaTeX). That is a one time payment appart from royalties. If you don't typeset, you don't get paid by page, just have to follow the contract that says between xxx and xxx pages (where xxx are limits).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is because Python has a large standard library ( so called batteries included ) .Regarding paying per page , as a book author I can confirm that you are paid per page only if you accept to typeset the book ( with LaTeX ) .
That is a one time payment appart from royalties .
If you do n't typeset , you do n't get paid by page , just have to follow the contract that says between xxx and xxx pages ( where xxx are limits ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is because Python has a large standard library (so called batteries included).Regarding paying per page, as a book author I can confirm that you are paid per page only if you accept to typeset the book (with LaTeX).
That is a one time payment appart from royalties.
If you don't typeset, you don't get paid by page, just have to follow the contract that says between xxx and xxx pages (where xxx are limits).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237702</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>Caesar Tjalbo</author>
	<datestamp>1266839820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a great book but it has just a naked python on the cover, they forgot the nutshell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a great book but it has just a naked python on the cover , they forgot the nutshell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a great book but it has just a naked python on the cover, they forgot the nutshell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238546</id>
	<title>Maybe Hulk Hogan's biceps...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...would have been a better cover art image?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...would have been a better cover art image ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...would have been a better cover art image?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018</id>
	<title>Better Than First Edition?</title>
	<author>adipocere</author>
	<datestamp>1266833940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition, although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement.  The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half.  I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured, "Ah, an O'Reilly book!"  Big mistake.</p><p>Endless bits about immutability, without hints as to why I ought to care.  I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now, but to start with it seems<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... strange.  I was not transitioning to Python from shell programming, and I doubt many do.  Lambda expressions, entirely too early.  Not a great deal of attention paid to idiom, which is just about central to learning a new language.  Little discussion of how you might have accomplished tasks in other languages and wish to do the Pythonic equivalent.  I loathed the first edition and refer to it precisely never.  I eventually dropped it in a puddle and felt no urgency towards retrieving it.  The now-wrinkly cover suggests that some unhappy deity has attempted to purify it by flood.</p><p>I ought to have tried fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition , although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement .
The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half .
I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured , " Ah , an O'Reilly book !
" Big mistake.Endless bits about immutability , without hints as to why I ought to care .
I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now , but to start with it seems ... strange. I was not transitioning to Python from shell programming , and I doubt many do .
Lambda expressions , entirely too early .
Not a great deal of attention paid to idiom , which is just about central to learning a new language .
Little discussion of how you might have accomplished tasks in other languages and wish to do the Pythonic equivalent .
I loathed the first edition and refer to it precisely never .
I eventually dropped it in a puddle and felt no urgency towards retrieving it .
The now-wrinkly cover suggests that some unhappy deity has attempted to purify it by flood.I ought to have tried fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition, although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement.
The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half.
I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured, "Ah, an O'Reilly book!
"  Big mistake.Endless bits about immutability, without hints as to why I ought to care.
I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now, but to start with it seems ... strange.  I was not transitioning to Python from shell programming, and I doubt many do.
Lambda expressions, entirely too early.
Not a great deal of attention paid to idiom, which is just about central to learning a new language.
Little discussion of how you might have accomplished tasks in other languages and wish to do the Pythonic equivalent.
I loathed the first edition and refer to it precisely never.
I eventually dropped it in a puddle and felt no urgency towards retrieving it.
The now-wrinkly cover suggests that some unhappy deity has attempted to purify it by flood.I ought to have tried fire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236836</id>
	<title>Re:Better Than First Edition?</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1266836340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have probably the previous edition of this book, and what you're describing sounds like a different book. Lamda expressions came after basic and intermediate functions - I had no problem with it. All he talked about was idiom - the "pythonic" way of doing things - while mentioning that a C programmer would probably have used a loop instead of a map expression, etc.</p><p>So I'd say they fixed it up a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have probably the previous edition of this book , and what you 're describing sounds like a different book .
Lamda expressions came after basic and intermediate functions - I had no problem with it .
All he talked about was idiom - the " pythonic " way of doing things - while mentioning that a C programmer would probably have used a loop instead of a map expression , etc.So I 'd say they fixed it up a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have probably the previous edition of this book, and what you're describing sounds like a different book.
Lamda expressions came after basic and intermediate functions - I had no problem with it.
All he talked about was idiom - the "pythonic" way of doing things - while mentioning that a C programmer would probably have used a loop instead of a map expression, etc.So I'd say they fixed it up a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235962</id>
	<title>why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why learn python when there is C and PHP?  both are better at what they do best and what python seemingly tries to bridge.  if you think python is the answer, you are kidding yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why learn python when there is C and PHP ?
both are better at what they do best and what python seemingly tries to bridge .
if you think python is the answer , you are kidding yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why learn python when there is C and PHP?
both are better at what they do best and what python seemingly tries to bridge.
if you think python is the answer, you are kidding yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236714</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266836040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A dead parrot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A dead parrot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A dead parrot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237568</id>
	<title>beautifully type-set book?</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1266839220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm calling bull shit on that one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm calling bull shit on that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm calling bull shit on that one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239068</id>
	<title>Re:Monty</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1266847320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a bit runny, sir.</p><p>I don't care how fucking runny it is!</p><p>Oh...the cat's eaten it, sir.</p><p>Has he?</p><p>She, sir.</p><p>---</p><p>If ever an alien races comes to Earth and decides to destroy us for being uncivilized and uncultured, all we have to do to save ourselves is send them up the DVD sets of Python Python, Fawlty Towers and BlackAdder. And Manimal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a bit runny , sir.I do n't care how fucking runny it is ! Oh...the cat 's eaten it , sir.Has he ? She , sir.---If ever an alien races comes to Earth and decides to destroy us for being uncivilized and uncultured , all we have to do to save ourselves is send them up the DVD sets of Python Python , Fawlty Towers and BlackAdder .
And Manimal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a bit runny, sir.I don't care how fucking runny it is!Oh...the cat's eaten it, sir.Has he?She, sir.---If ever an alien races comes to Earth and decides to destroy us for being uncivilized and uncultured, all we have to do to save ourselves is send them up the DVD sets of Python Python, Fawlty Towers and BlackAdder.
And Manimal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237164</id>
	<title>Re:Better Than First Edition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266837540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll chime in as another who found a previous edition of this work to be flawed -- enough so to tarnish the O'Reilly brand for me.  While it's possible the newest edition is better it sounds (from the review) more like an update than a re-write.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll chime in as another who found a previous edition of this work to be flawed -- enough so to tarnish the O'Reilly brand for me .
While it 's possible the newest edition is better it sounds ( from the review ) more like an update than a re-write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll chime in as another who found a previous edition of this work to be flawed -- enough so to tarnish the O'Reilly brand for me.
While it's possible the newest edition is better it sounds (from the review) more like an update than a re-write.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244198</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1266939120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's not dead, he's resting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not dead , he 's resting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not dead, he's resting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235706</id>
	<title>Slashvertisement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much were you paid off to put this on the front page, samzenpus, or should I say DOUCHE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much were you paid off to put this on the front page , samzenpus , or should I say DOUCHE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much were you paid off to put this on the front page, samzenpus, or should I say DOUCHE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239510</id>
	<title>Re:Too wordy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266849960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beazley's book is the K&amp;R equivalent for python.  197 pages of Python (Part A).  There's a part B that is 400 pages of library reference.  The library reference is longer because it goes far beyond what K&amp;R covers for C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beazley 's book is the K&amp;R equivalent for python .
197 pages of Python ( Part A ) .
There 's a part B that is 400 pages of library reference .
The library reference is longer because it goes far beyond what K&amp;R covers for C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beazley's book is the K&amp;R equivalent for python.
197 pages of Python (Part A).
There's a part B that is 400 pages of library reference.
The library reference is longer because it goes far beyond what K&amp;R covers for C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31240182</id>
	<title>Python Programming: An Introduction to Comp Sci</title>
	<author>darpo</author>
	<datestamp>1266855060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those reading the criticisms of this book and looking for an alternative...
I have been working my way through this book. It is excellent. It's the book I wished I'd had when I tried CS years ago:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Python-Programming-Introduction-Computer-Science/dp/1887902996" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Python-Programming-Introduction-Computer-Science/dp/1887902996</a> [amazon.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those reading the criticisms of this book and looking for an alternative.. . I have been working my way through this book .
It is excellent .
It 's the book I wished I 'd had when I tried CS years ago : http : //www.amazon.com/Python-Programming-Introduction-Computer-Science/dp/1887902996 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those reading the criticisms of this book and looking for an alternative...
I have been working my way through this book.
It is excellent.
It's the book I wished I'd had when I tried CS years ago:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Python-Programming-Introduction-Computer-Science/dp/1887902996 [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237520</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>Thantik</author>
	<datestamp>1266838980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called "Learning Python: Powerful Object-Oriented Programming."</p><p>Or for short:  Learning Python: POOP.</p><p>Maybe that's why the rodent is there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " Learning Python : Powerful Object-Oriented Programming .
" Or for short : Learning Python : POOP.Maybe that 's why the rodent is there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "Learning Python: Powerful Object-Oriented Programming.
"Or for short:  Learning Python: POOP.Maybe that's why the rodent is there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238134</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>sqldr</author>
	<datestamp>1266841860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compared to C and C++, it's a different kettle of fish.  If you're using C++ where you would normally use python, then you shouldn't be using C++.  I guess the only crossover between the two is that python has some excellent libraries that allow you to get almost dirty with system functions, as well as things like opengl and audio libraries, so if you're tweaking filedescriptors or writing a game and don't need a compiled language, then I guess there is a little grey area.  Incidentally, there's "weave" which allows you to embed c/c++ code into python and compile it on the fly, so you can get the best of both worlds in some cases.</p><p>Compared to perl, I spend far less time looking in the python manual than I do in the perl manual when I'm using the same scripting language for the same task.  Compared to perl's "there's more than one way to do it" motto, python has the philosophy of "there should be at least one obvious way to do it".</p><p>With this in mind, you achieve the same tasks in a different manner.  Perl's workhorse is its built-in regular expressions.  Python has them, but you tend to use them as a last resort.. its splitting, joining, globbing and list comprehension features are more than sufficient for the same tasks, and look less like, well..  ~=<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/^[^(.*|)+?(xyzzy)/gS</p><p>It also has more of a tendency to push you towards functional logic or use of iterators rather than getting bogged down with if/then/else type stuff.</p><p>Finally (from me.. there's probably more, but I'll stop now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)) it has proper classes with proper constructors, destructors, typed exception handling, inheritance, etc. without all of that "bless" nonsense.  Yeah, you can do classes in perl, but it's so much hassle, people tend only to use it for libraries and bigger programs.  You don't think twice about using a class in python where appropriate.</p><p>Compared to java, although the syntax is a world apart, the grammar is actually very similar, and feature-for-feature, the language behaves in similar ways, except of course that java is a compiled language.</p><p>As for fortran, I guess fortran is a bit specialised.  Python has things like complex numbers, but they're worlds apart really.</p><p>It took me about a day to learn python, and about 3 weeks to get confident with perl.  The python language and library is designed by a quite slow moving, but very careful committee.  Python has equivalents to CPAN, but CPAN is like doing a recursive wget on freshmeat and seeing what you get.  The core library in python is so good and geared towards its users that you rarely (certainly as a sysadmin) have to bring in 3rd party modules except for specialist environments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to C and C + + , it 's a different kettle of fish .
If you 're using C + + where you would normally use python , then you should n't be using C + + .
I guess the only crossover between the two is that python has some excellent libraries that allow you to get almost dirty with system functions , as well as things like opengl and audio libraries , so if you 're tweaking filedescriptors or writing a game and do n't need a compiled language , then I guess there is a little grey area .
Incidentally , there 's " weave " which allows you to embed c/c + + code into python and compile it on the fly , so you can get the best of both worlds in some cases.Compared to perl , I spend far less time looking in the python manual than I do in the perl manual when I 'm using the same scripting language for the same task .
Compared to perl 's " there 's more than one way to do it " motto , python has the philosophy of " there should be at least one obvious way to do it " .With this in mind , you achieve the same tasks in a different manner .
Perl 's workhorse is its built-in regular expressions .
Python has them , but you tend to use them as a last resort.. its splitting , joining , globbing and list comprehension features are more than sufficient for the same tasks , and look less like , well.. ~ = / ^ [ ^ ( . * | ) + ?
( xyzzy ) /gSIt also has more of a tendency to push you towards functional logic or use of iterators rather than getting bogged down with if/then/else type stuff.Finally ( from me.. there 's probably more , but I 'll stop now : - ) ) it has proper classes with proper constructors , destructors , typed exception handling , inheritance , etc .
without all of that " bless " nonsense .
Yeah , you can do classes in perl , but it 's so much hassle , people tend only to use it for libraries and bigger programs .
You do n't think twice about using a class in python where appropriate.Compared to java , although the syntax is a world apart , the grammar is actually very similar , and feature-for-feature , the language behaves in similar ways , except of course that java is a compiled language.As for fortran , I guess fortran is a bit specialised .
Python has things like complex numbers , but they 're worlds apart really.It took me about a day to learn python , and about 3 weeks to get confident with perl .
The python language and library is designed by a quite slow moving , but very careful committee .
Python has equivalents to CPAN , but CPAN is like doing a recursive wget on freshmeat and seeing what you get .
The core library in python is so good and geared towards its users that you rarely ( certainly as a sysadmin ) have to bring in 3rd party modules except for specialist environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to C and C++, it's a different kettle of fish.
If you're using C++ where you would normally use python, then you shouldn't be using C++.
I guess the only crossover between the two is that python has some excellent libraries that allow you to get almost dirty with system functions, as well as things like opengl and audio libraries, so if you're tweaking filedescriptors or writing a game and don't need a compiled language, then I guess there is a little grey area.
Incidentally, there's "weave" which allows you to embed c/c++ code into python and compile it on the fly, so you can get the best of both worlds in some cases.Compared to perl, I spend far less time looking in the python manual than I do in the perl manual when I'm using the same scripting language for the same task.
Compared to perl's "there's more than one way to do it" motto, python has the philosophy of "there should be at least one obvious way to do it".With this in mind, you achieve the same tasks in a different manner.
Perl's workhorse is its built-in regular expressions.
Python has them, but you tend to use them as a last resort.. its splitting, joining, globbing and list comprehension features are more than sufficient for the same tasks, and look less like, well..  ~= /^[^(.*|)+?
(xyzzy)/gSIt also has more of a tendency to push you towards functional logic or use of iterators rather than getting bogged down with if/then/else type stuff.Finally (from me.. there's probably more, but I'll stop now :-)) it has proper classes with proper constructors, destructors, typed exception handling, inheritance, etc.
without all of that "bless" nonsense.
Yeah, you can do classes in perl, but it's so much hassle, people tend only to use it for libraries and bigger programs.
You don't think twice about using a class in python where appropriate.Compared to java, although the syntax is a world apart, the grammar is actually very similar, and feature-for-feature, the language behaves in similar ways, except of course that java is a compiled language.As for fortran, I guess fortran is a bit specialised.
Python has things like complex numbers, but they're worlds apart really.It took me about a day to learn python, and about 3 weeks to get confident with perl.
The python language and library is designed by a quite slow moving, but very careful committee.
Python has equivalents to CPAN, but CPAN is like doing a recursive wget on freshmeat and seeing what you get.
The core library in python is so good and geared towards its users that you rarely (certainly as a sysadmin) have to bring in 3rd party modules except for specialist environments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238302</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1266842940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>A python appears on a previous O'Reilly book, "Python in a Nutshell"</i> </p><p>If memory serves me correctly <i>Learning Python</i> was out in the 1st edition for some years before the Nutshell book was written.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A python appears on a previous O'Reilly book , " Python in a Nutshell " If memory serves me correctly Learning Python was out in the 1st edition for some years before the Nutshell book was written .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A python appears on a previous O'Reilly book, "Python in a Nutshell" If memory serves me correctly Learning Python was out in the 1st edition for some years before the Nutshell book was written.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237324</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266838200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Python is a fairly functional language, which is something you are missing in your repertoire.  Lambdas and list comprehensions are very useful and interesting constructs that apply to certain kinds of problems a lot more readily than the declarative languages you might be used to, but they might require overcoming a learning curve.  Python (and, similarly, Ruby) is a fairly shallow introduction to the otherwise fairly steep family of functional languages.</p><p>It is often abused as a simpler Fortran or C, since it is very easy to do, so I would stay clear of that and try to stick to resources that teach you the common Python idioms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Python is a fairly functional language , which is something you are missing in your repertoire .
Lambdas and list comprehensions are very useful and interesting constructs that apply to certain kinds of problems a lot more readily than the declarative languages you might be used to , but they might require overcoming a learning curve .
Python ( and , similarly , Ruby ) is a fairly shallow introduction to the otherwise fairly steep family of functional languages.It is often abused as a simpler Fortran or C , since it is very easy to do , so I would stay clear of that and try to stick to resources that teach you the common Python idioms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python is a fairly functional language, which is something you are missing in your repertoire.
Lambdas and list comprehensions are very useful and interesting constructs that apply to certain kinds of problems a lot more readily than the declarative languages you might be used to, but they might require overcoming a learning curve.
Python (and, similarly, Ruby) is a fairly shallow introduction to the otherwise fairly steep family of functional languages.It is often abused as a simpler Fortran or C, since it is very easy to do, so I would stay clear of that and try to stick to resources that teach you the common Python idioms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238738</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, considering that the name of the language is actually a reference to Monty Python (Guido's a fan), they could use just about any animal from the MP lore.  Of course, the only one I can think of is a dead parrot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , considering that the name of the language is actually a reference to Monty Python ( Guido 's a fan ) , they could use just about any animal from the MP lore .
Of course , the only one I can think of is a dead parrot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, considering that the name of the language is actually a reference to Monty Python (Guido's a fan), they could use just about any animal from the MP lore.
Of course, the only one I can think of is a dead parrot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236138</id>
	<title>Which Python?</title>
	<author>cephus</author>
	<datestamp>1266834300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but where is the chapter on how to do the dead parrot sketch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but where is the chapter on how to do the dead parrot sketch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but where is the chapter on how to do the dead parrot sketch?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238636</id>
	<title>Re:Monty</title>
	<author>thatpythonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266844740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is there a rat on the cover of a snake book anyway? Perhaps O'Reilly already used a snake picture on the cover of some other book and they didn't wanted to confuse people by having 2 snake books?</p></div><p>Correct! O'Reily's Programming Python already has a snake! I suppose they decided to go with the snake's food.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is there a rat on the cover of a snake book anyway ?
Perhaps O'Reilly already used a snake picture on the cover of some other book and they did n't wanted to confuse people by having 2 snake books ? Correct !
O'Reily 's Programming Python already has a snake !
I suppose they decided to go with the snake 's food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is there a rat on the cover of a snake book anyway?
Perhaps O'Reilly already used a snake picture on the cover of some other book and they didn't wanted to confuse people by having 2 snake books?Correct!
O'Reily's Programming Python already has a snake!
I suppose they decided to go with the snake's food.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236956</id>
	<title>Pages?</title>
	<author>jschmitz</author>
	<datestamp>1266836700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this edition 500+ pages too? the last one is like a boat anchor.............</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this edition 500 + pages too ?
the last one is like a boat anchor............ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this edition 500+ pages too?
the last one is like a boat anchor.............</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235776</id>
	<title>Tag as SLASHVERTISEMENT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236150</id>
	<title>easy to learn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i learned python - look - heres how you say hello:"sssssssss" and goodbye "ssssss". snake talk is easy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i learned python - look - heres how you say hello : " sssssssss " and goodbye " ssssss " .
snake talk is easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i learned python - look - heres how you say hello:"sssssssss" and goodbye "ssssss".
snake talk is easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237576</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1266839280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This time they should have used a dead parrot. One with beautiful plumage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This time they should have used a dead parrot .
One with beautiful plumage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This time they should have used a dead parrot.
One with beautiful plumage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244700</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1266941640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After programming in Perl, did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago?</p></div><p>I've gone back years later and figured out what I was doing with Perl code.  If you write your code for legibility and remember that you shouldn't write code to the limit of your cleverness, you can do it too.  Now, why I thought that it would be a good idea to write a combination text-based adventure game, symbolic math program is another question<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Sadly, many people seem to write code to show off how clever they are.</p><p>I've also had experience deciphering obscure code -- a grading system for a school written in BASIC-PLUS with two character variable names and a 256 (or so) character line length limit.  After doing this for a while, you begin to see the benefit of writing legible code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After programming in Perl , did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago ? I 've gone back years later and figured out what I was doing with Perl code .
If you write your code for legibility and remember that you should n't write code to the limit of your cleverness , you can do it too .
Now , why I thought that it would be a good idea to write a combination text-based adventure game , symbolic math program is another question ; - ) Sadly , many people seem to write code to show off how clever they are.I 've also had experience deciphering obscure code -- a grading system for a school written in BASIC-PLUS with two character variable names and a 256 ( or so ) character line length limit .
After doing this for a while , you begin to see the benefit of writing legible code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After programming in Perl, did you ever go back and try to figure out what you did a year ago?I've gone back years later and figured out what I was doing with Perl code.
If you write your code for legibility and remember that you shouldn't write code to the limit of your cleverness, you can do it too.
Now, why I thought that it would be a good idea to write a combination text-based adventure game, symbolic math program is another question ;-)Sadly, many people seem to write code to show off how clever they are.I've also had experience deciphering obscure code -- a grading system for a school written in BASIC-PLUS with two character variable names and a 256 (or so) character line length limit.
After doing this for a while, you begin to see the benefit of writing legible code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238324</id>
	<title>Re:Question: Who's making a living coding Python?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me. I got the job as a graduate, got trained in Python and after using it quite some time you realise that what looks like a bit of a simple language really does have lot of depth. It's just a shame that most people who criticise it have never bothered really learning it.</p><p>I use other languages in my spare time (it doesn't seem like a good idea to become a one trick pony) but at work it's all about Python.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me .
I got the job as a graduate , got trained in Python and after using it quite some time you realise that what looks like a bit of a simple language really does have lot of depth .
It 's just a shame that most people who criticise it have never bothered really learning it.I use other languages in my spare time ( it does n't seem like a good idea to become a one trick pony ) but at work it 's all about Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me.
I got the job as a graduate, got trained in Python and after using it quite some time you realise that what looks like a bit of a simple language really does have lot of depth.
It's just a shame that most people who criticise it have never bothered really learning it.I use other languages in my spare time (it doesn't seem like a good idea to become a one trick pony) but at work it's all about Python.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237028</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>Manhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1266837000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I cant speak to php or Occam...</p><p>You aren't forced into object orient programming as with Java, although the language does have good implementations (IMHO) of classes if you choose to utilize them.  It also doesn't force the 'one class per file' structure of Java upon you.  (Granted its been years since I've touched Java, so these critiques may no longer apply).</p><p>I started by using Python for a lot of the things for which I initially used Perl.  I find Python code immensely more readable than Perl.</p><p>Lately I've used Python alot because it has some superb 3rd party libraries for scientific computing (numpy, scipy, matplotlib are the three which I use the most.) These libraries give Python the utility of Matlab (vectorized functions, easy plotting, interfacing to C and Fortran for speed) in an open platform without the fees associated with Matlab.</p><p>For my job (aerospace engineering) Python is now my go-to language when I first start working a problem, and I transition to C or Fortran only if I need the speed or someone else requires me to do so, which is not often these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I cant speak to php or Occam...You are n't forced into object orient programming as with Java , although the language does have good implementations ( IMHO ) of classes if you choose to utilize them .
It also does n't force the 'one class per file ' structure of Java upon you .
( Granted its been years since I 've touched Java , so these critiques may no longer apply ) .I started by using Python for a lot of the things for which I initially used Perl .
I find Python code immensely more readable than Perl.Lately I 've used Python alot because it has some superb 3rd party libraries for scientific computing ( numpy , scipy , matplotlib are the three which I use the most .
) These libraries give Python the utility of Matlab ( vectorized functions , easy plotting , interfacing to C and Fortran for speed ) in an open platform without the fees associated with Matlab.For my job ( aerospace engineering ) Python is now my go-to language when I first start working a problem , and I transition to C or Fortran only if I need the speed or someone else requires me to do so , which is not often these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I cant speak to php or Occam...You aren't forced into object orient programming as with Java, although the language does have good implementations (IMHO) of classes if you choose to utilize them.
It also doesn't force the 'one class per file' structure of Java upon you.
(Granted its been years since I've touched Java, so these critiques may no longer apply).I started by using Python for a lot of the things for which I initially used Perl.
I find Python code immensely more readable than Perl.Lately I've used Python alot because it has some superb 3rd party libraries for scientific computing (numpy, scipy, matplotlib are the three which I use the most.
) These libraries give Python the utility of Matlab (vectorized functions, easy plotting, interfacing to C and Fortran for speed) in an open platform without the fees associated with Matlab.For my job (aerospace engineering) Python is now my go-to language when I first start working a problem, and I transition to C or Fortran only if I need the speed or someone else requires me to do so, which is not often these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242068</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>laejoh</author>
	<datestamp>1266918000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No arms?</p><p>He's called the Black "Tis but a scratch; I've had worse!" Knight!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No arms ? He 's called the Black " T is but a scratch ; I 've had worse !
" Knight !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No arms?He's called the Black "Tis but a scratch; I've had worse!
" Knight!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235994</id>
	<title>Both of Alex Martelli's books are better IMHO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Python in a Nutshell and Python Cookbook.  Both discuss that deployment stuff, for example.  Neither of them is geared towards complete beginners to programming though.  They are very good if you're experienced with some other language and have picked up the basics of Python from the online tutorial.</p><p>Learning Python is not a terrible book, but (except for the rather inconvenient matter of being about a pathological eclectic rubbish lister instead of being about Python) Learning Perl does a better job of accomplishing similar goals (explaining programming to non-programmers starting from scratch).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Python in a Nutshell and Python Cookbook .
Both discuss that deployment stuff , for example .
Neither of them is geared towards complete beginners to programming though .
They are very good if you 're experienced with some other language and have picked up the basics of Python from the online tutorial.Learning Python is not a terrible book , but ( except for the rather inconvenient matter of being about a pathological eclectic rubbish lister instead of being about Python ) Learning Perl does a better job of accomplishing similar goals ( explaining programming to non-programmers starting from scratch ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python in a Nutshell and Python Cookbook.
Both discuss that deployment stuff, for example.
Neither of them is geared towards complete beginners to programming though.
They are very good if you're experienced with some other language and have picked up the basics of Python from the online tutorial.Learning Python is not a terrible book, but (except for the rather inconvenient matter of being about a pathological eclectic rubbish lister instead of being about Python) Learning Perl does a better job of accomplishing similar goals (explaining programming to non-programmers starting from scratch).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31241436</id>
	<title>And</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1266867720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.swaroopch.com/notes/Python" title="swaroopch.com" rel="nofollow">A Byte of Python</a> [swaroopch.com] is also a good <i>download-able</i>book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Byte of Python [ swaroopch.com ] is also a good download-ablebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Byte of Python [swaroopch.com] is also a good download-ablebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237100</id>
	<title>Re:Too wordy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266837240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that the Python language and standard libraries ("batteries included") are at least 10x as big as C's.  Also, Python is object-oriented<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/and/ functional programming paradigms covered in addition to C's procedural.  (Sure, you can shim OO into C with libraries (Gobject, e.g.), but it's sure as hell not covered in K&amp;R.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that the Python language and standard libraries ( " batteries included " ) are at least 10x as big as C 's .
Also , Python is object-oriented /and/ functional programming paradigms covered in addition to C 's procedural .
( Sure , you can shim OO into C with libraries ( Gobject , e.g .
) , but it 's sure as hell not covered in K&amp;R .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that the Python language and standard libraries ("batteries included") are at least 10x as big as C's.
Also, Python is object-oriented /and/ functional programming paradigms covered in addition to C's procedural.
(Sure, you can shim OO into C with libraries (Gobject, e.g.
), but it's sure as hell not covered in K&amp;R.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458</id>
	<title>Question: Who's making a living coding Python?</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1266838740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, exclusively coding in Python? Who's got a paying job? Just curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , exclusively coding in Python ?
Who 's got a paying job ?
Just curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, exclusively coding in Python?
Who's got a paying job?
Just curious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238788</id>
	<title>Re:Question: Who's making a living coding Python?</title>
	<author>thatpythonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266845760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I (the author of this review) use Python exclusively (if you don't count specialized and supporting languages).

If you are looking for high-profile users, try Google. Python is one of three "officially supported languages" (the others being C++ and Java; "official" does not mean that other languages are not used!).

I would guess that all other large software houses use Python somehow. Besides being a great language in its own right, it is a great systems/prototyping language! Also, it is perfect if you like to code without undue pain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ( the author of this review ) use Python exclusively ( if you do n't count specialized and supporting languages ) .
If you are looking for high-profile users , try Google .
Python is one of three " officially supported languages " ( the others being C + + and Java ; " official " does not mean that other languages are not used ! ) .
I would guess that all other large software houses use Python somehow .
Besides being a great language in its own right , it is a great systems/prototyping language !
Also , it is perfect if you like to code without undue pain ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I (the author of this review) use Python exclusively (if you don't count specialized and supporting languages).
If you are looking for high-profile users, try Google.
Python is one of three "officially supported languages" (the others being C++ and Java; "official" does not mean that other languages are not used!).
I would guess that all other large software houses use Python somehow.
Besides being a great language in its own right, it is a great systems/prototyping language!
Also, it is perfect if you like to code without undue pain ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236416</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1266835260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then came the Python that ate the mouse that drank the Cocoa that sweetened Java that dissolved the Perl that replaced the Ruby that my father bought for zuzim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then came the Python that ate the mouse that drank the Cocoa that sweetened Java that dissolved the Perl that replaced the Ruby that my father bought for zuzim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then came the Python that ate the mouse that drank the Cocoa that sweetened Java that dissolved the Perl that replaced the Ruby that my father bought for zuzim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239906</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>binary paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1266852720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I love Python.</p><p>That said, I love Python IN SPITE of its way of enforcing white space. I've had many annoying debugging issues that are the result of whitespace being broken when moving from one editor to another and it makes using blocks inside the interactive shell more annoying than it needs to be.</p><p>Most of my coding these days is in Ruby and while it doesn't enforce how you use whitespace, only a complete tool doesn't indent their code. I find that having some keyword or symbol (e.g. end or }) also makes code easier to read than just ending as a result of the indent dropping (which is not easy to see in some cases and is even more annoying if you have to use an editor without some way of visually denoting line breaks and tabs).</p><p>The Zen of Python should be followed by virtually every language out there though. There isn't a language on the planet that wouldn't be more readable if those conventions were followed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I love Python.That said , I love Python IN SPITE of its way of enforcing white space .
I 've had many annoying debugging issues that are the result of whitespace being broken when moving from one editor to another and it makes using blocks inside the interactive shell more annoying than it needs to be.Most of my coding these days is in Ruby and while it does n't enforce how you use whitespace , only a complete tool does n't indent their code .
I find that having some keyword or symbol ( e.g .
end or } ) also makes code easier to read than just ending as a result of the indent dropping ( which is not easy to see in some cases and is even more annoying if you have to use an editor without some way of visually denoting line breaks and tabs ) .The Zen of Python should be followed by virtually every language out there though .
There is n't a language on the planet that would n't be more readable if those conventions were followed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I love Python.That said, I love Python IN SPITE of its way of enforcing white space.
I've had many annoying debugging issues that are the result of whitespace being broken when moving from one editor to another and it makes using blocks inside the interactive shell more annoying than it needs to be.Most of my coding these days is in Ruby and while it doesn't enforce how you use whitespace, only a complete tool doesn't indent their code.
I find that having some keyword or symbol (e.g.
end or }) also makes code easier to read than just ending as a result of the indent dropping (which is not easy to see in some cases and is even more annoying if you have to use an editor without some way of visually denoting line breaks and tabs).The Zen of Python should be followed by virtually every language out there though.
There isn't a language on the planet that wouldn't be more readable if those conventions were followed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239582</id>
	<title>Re:Too wordy</title>
	<author>yerM)M</author>
	<datestamp>1266850440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here, but maybe you are rather missing the point of Python which is "batteries included."  The python standard library contains much more than Python, did K&amp;R include:

<ul>
<li>A web server</li>
<li>An xml parser</li>
<li>Email parser</li>
<li>GUI package</li>
<li>Windows COM interface</li>
<li>And so on.</li>
</ul><p>

It's kind of surprising that Learning python is only 1000 pages, which is not too say that it isn't too wordy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm being a bit tongue in cheek here , but maybe you are rather missing the point of Python which is " batteries included .
" The python standard library contains much more than Python , did K&amp;R include : A web server An xml parser Email parser GUI package Windows COM interface And so on .
It 's kind of surprising that Learning python is only 1000 pages , which is not too say that it is n't too wordy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here, but maybe you are rather missing the point of Python which is "batteries included.
"  The python standard library contains much more than Python, did K&amp;R include:


A web server
An xml parser
Email parser
GUI package
Windows COM interface
And so on.
It's kind of surprising that Learning python is only 1000 pages, which is not too say that it isn't too wordy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238682</id>
	<title>Mixing 2.6 and 3.0</title>
	<author>JohnM4</author>
	<datestamp>1266845100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure it's worth it to mix Python 2.6 and 3.0 in the same book. Of course there's always the possibility that you will inherit some code from either version, but in the course of learning the language I think it's best to pick one path and stick with it.

I teach introductory programming with Python and we have stuck with 2.6 at least until most resources catch up to the 3.0 changes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure it 's worth it to mix Python 2.6 and 3.0 in the same book .
Of course there 's always the possibility that you will inherit some code from either version , but in the course of learning the language I think it 's best to pick one path and stick with it .
I teach introductory programming with Python and we have stuck with 2.6 at least until most resources catch up to the 3.0 changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure it's worth it to mix Python 2.6 and 3.0 in the same book.
Of course there's always the possibility that you will inherit some code from either version, but in the course of learning the language I think it's best to pick one path and stick with it.
I teach introductory programming with Python and we have stuck with 2.6 at least until most resources catch up to the 3.0 changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238532</id>
	<title>Re:Question: Who's making a living coding Python?</title>
	<author>An ominous Cow art</author>
	<datestamp>1266844200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not exclusively coding in Python, but I do as much in it as I can.  Probably about 80\% Python and 20\% Visual FoxPro, these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not exclusively coding in Python , but I do as much in it as I can .
Probably about 80 \ % Python and 20 \ % Visual FoxPro , these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not exclusively coding in Python, but I do as much in it as I can.
Probably about 80\% Python and 20\% Visual FoxPro, these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31243816</id>
	<title>The definitive Python Book</title>
	<author>fartrader</author>
	<datestamp>1266937140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lutz rocks the house.  I would have given it a 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lutz rocks the house .
I would have given it a 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lutz rocks the house.
I would have given it a 10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236468</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>gpuk</author>
	<datestamp>1266835380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, the python name is a homage to Monty Python and has nothing to do with the snake. Perhaps a knight sans arms would have been more fitting...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , the python name is a homage to Monty Python and has nothing to do with the snake .
Perhaps a knight sans arms would have been more fitting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, the python name is a homage to Monty Python and has nothing to do with the snake.
Perhaps a knight sans arms would have been more fitting...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31240780</id>
	<title>Re:Too wordy</title>
	<author>Japher</author>
	<datestamp>1266860640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like most of the replies to this post talk about Python's large standard library (I think every one of them has used the phrase "batteries included") but quoting directly from the review:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This book discusses the Python language and excludes the Python standard and non-standard libraries. The latter are discussed in other places including Lutz's own Programming Python which stands at its third edition at the time of writing of this article. I find this division necessary because of size considerations and, in fact, this division did not exist in the first edition of the book!</p></div><p>This book attempts to introduce ONLY the core language so your comparison to K&amp;R is dead on accurate. The author choose not to include the batteries in order to keep the book from getting too big, and he STILL took over 1000 pages. There's something wrong here. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like most of the replies to this post talk about Python 's large standard library ( I think every one of them has used the phrase " batteries included " ) but quoting directly from the review : This book discusses the Python language and excludes the Python standard and non-standard libraries .
The latter are discussed in other places including Lutz 's own Programming Python which stands at its third edition at the time of writing of this article .
I find this division necessary because of size considerations and , in fact , this division did not exist in the first edition of the book ! This book attempts to introduce ONLY the core language so your comparison to K&amp;R is dead on accurate .
The author choose not to include the batteries in order to keep the book from getting too big , and he STILL took over 1000 pages .
There 's something wrong here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like most of the replies to this post talk about Python's large standard library (I think every one of them has used the phrase "batteries included") but quoting directly from the review:This book discusses the Python language and excludes the Python standard and non-standard libraries.
The latter are discussed in other places including Lutz's own Programming Python which stands at its third edition at the time of writing of this article.
I find this division necessary because of size considerations and, in fact, this division did not exist in the first edition of the book!This book attempts to introduce ONLY the core language so your comparison to K&amp;R is dead on accurate.
The author choose not to include the batteries in order to keep the book from getting too big, and he STILL took over 1000 pages.
There's something wrong here. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31241918</id>
	<title>Re:Cover art</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1266915960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They use the same animal on more than one cover, if they are from different series. For example, their famous tarsier is used for both "Learning the vi Editor" and for "UNIX in a Nutshell." The python is used for three: "Programming Python", "Python in a Nutshell", and "Python Pocket Reference."<br> <br>The first edition of "Programming Python" (which uses the famous python image) was from 1996, and the first edition of "Learning Python" was in 1999. They are both from the same general series, so they couldn't use the same python image. My guess is that the mouse was used because pythons often eat mice, and a mouse is a small, timid animal (good for a beginner's book). Then an alligator was used for "Python Programming for Win32 Systems", which is no longer published today. So in the early years they had these three animals: the python, the mouse, and the alligator. Although many people would expect a continuation of snakes for these books, most O'Reilly titles only have animals tangentially related to their subject.<br> <br>Interestingly, it appears as though O'Reilly has found some extra boa constrictor and python images that they have used more recently in Python books.<br> <br>Sadly, "Learning Python" has grown from a book less than 400 pages, to one over 1200. It used to be that people would buy "Learning Python" if they wanted a reasonable sized learning book, and the big 1200 page "Programming Python" if they were truly crazy. Now "Programming Python" is over 1600 pages, and "Learning Python" is over 900. I wish they would enforce some editing decisions and call some difficult shots. Even a quota for how long a "Learning" book can be, would be very helpful. Nobody wants to sift through a 1200 page book just to learn a scripting language.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</htmltext>
<tokenext>They use the same animal on more than one cover , if they are from different series .
For example , their famous tarsier is used for both " Learning the vi Editor " and for " UNIX in a Nutshell .
" The python is used for three : " Programming Python " , " Python in a Nutshell " , and " Python Pocket Reference .
" The first edition of " Programming Python " ( which uses the famous python image ) was from 1996 , and the first edition of " Learning Python " was in 1999 .
They are both from the same general series , so they could n't use the same python image .
My guess is that the mouse was used because pythons often eat mice , and a mouse is a small , timid animal ( good for a beginner 's book ) .
Then an alligator was used for " Python Programming for Win32 Systems " , which is no longer published today .
So in the early years they had these three animals : the python , the mouse , and the alligator .
Although many people would expect a continuation of snakes for these books , most O'Reilly titles only have animals tangentially related to their subject .
Interestingly , it appears as though O'Reilly has found some extra boa constrictor and python images that they have used more recently in Python books .
Sadly , " Learning Python " has grown from a book less than 400 pages , to one over 1200 .
It used to be that people would buy " Learning Python " if they wanted a reasonable sized learning book , and the big 1200 page " Programming Python " if they were truly crazy .
Now " Programming Python " is over 1600 pages , and " Learning Python " is over 900 .
I wish they would enforce some editing decisions and call some difficult shots .
Even a quota for how long a " Learning " book can be , would be very helpful .
Nobody wants to sift through a 1200 page book just to learn a scripting language .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use the same animal on more than one cover, if they are from different series.
For example, their famous tarsier is used for both "Learning the vi Editor" and for "UNIX in a Nutshell.
" The python is used for three: "Programming Python", "Python in a Nutshell", and "Python Pocket Reference.
" The first edition of "Programming Python" (which uses the famous python image) was from 1996, and the first edition of "Learning Python" was in 1999.
They are both from the same general series, so they couldn't use the same python image.
My guess is that the mouse was used because pythons often eat mice, and a mouse is a small, timid animal (good for a beginner's book).
Then an alligator was used for "Python Programming for Win32 Systems", which is no longer published today.
So in the early years they had these three animals: the python, the mouse, and the alligator.
Although many people would expect a continuation of snakes for these books, most O'Reilly titles only have animals tangentially related to their subject.
Interestingly, it appears as though O'Reilly has found some extra boa constrictor and python images that they have used more recently in Python books.
Sadly, "Learning Python" has grown from a book less than 400 pages, to one over 1200.
It used to be that people would buy "Learning Python" if they wanted a reasonable sized learning book, and the big 1200 page "Programming Python" if they were truly crazy.
Now "Programming Python" is over 1600 pages, and "Learning Python" is over 900.
I wish they would enforce some editing decisions and call some difficult shots.
Even a quota for how long a "Learning" book can be, would be very helpful.
Nobody wants to sift through a 1200 page book just to learn a scripting language.
:-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236194</id>
	<title>Re:Monty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A python would find a rat rather tasty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A python would find a rat rather tasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A python would find a rat rather tasty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235782</id>
	<title>Aren't we all supposed to be switching to Lua now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'know. Just trying to keep up with the current trend.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know .
Just trying to keep up with the current trend .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know.
Just trying to keep up with the current trend.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244428</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>xOneca</author>
	<datestamp>1266940200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where can the book be downloaded?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where can the book be downloaded ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where can the book be downloaded?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31263386</id>
	<title>Re:Missed out on Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I started out with Python, I hated the whole indent thing.  Really really hated it.  It didn't help that I was editing infoseek pages, which had the bright idea of embedding python into web pages then embedding javascript into that -- it was an insane time, the late 90's.  But then I got used to it, liked it for a while and now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... frankly I don't notice it.  It's probably one of the most superficial things about python.  I find it about as readable as my java, and it's more the lack of sigils and use of high-level constructs like list comprehensions that really enhance the readability for me.</p><p>There's a lot of things I still don't care for about the language, and plenty I can't stand about the culture (it's dominated by Twisted fanatics the way ruby channels are dominated by the Rails kids)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but when it comes to the syntax, I don't have any complaints.  You really do just get used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I started out with Python , I hated the whole indent thing .
Really really hated it .
It did n't help that I was editing infoseek pages , which had the bright idea of embedding python into web pages then embedding javascript into that -- it was an insane time , the late 90 's .
But then I got used to it , liked it for a while and now ... frankly I do n't notice it .
It 's probably one of the most superficial things about python .
I find it about as readable as my java , and it 's more the lack of sigils and use of high-level constructs like list comprehensions that really enhance the readability for me.There 's a lot of things I still do n't care for about the language , and plenty I ca n't stand about the culture ( it 's dominated by Twisted fanatics the way ruby channels are dominated by the Rails kids ) ... but when it comes to the syntax , I do n't have any complaints .
You really do just get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I started out with Python, I hated the whole indent thing.
Really really hated it.
It didn't help that I was editing infoseek pages, which had the bright idea of embedding python into web pages then embedding javascript into that -- it was an insane time, the late 90's.
But then I got used to it, liked it for a while and now ... frankly I don't notice it.
It's probably one of the most superficial things about python.
I find it about as readable as my java, and it's more the lack of sigils and use of high-level constructs like list comprehensions that really enhance the readability for me.There's a lot of things I still don't care for about the language, and plenty I can't stand about the culture (it's dominated by Twisted fanatics the way ruby channels are dominated by the Rails kids) ... but when it comes to the syntax, I don't have any complaints.
You really do just get used to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237156</id>
	<title>Best book ever (for CS graduates)</title>
	<author>stm2</author>
	<datestamp>1266837480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I liked this book (at least first ed., the one I read).<br>This book made me love Python. But I found it too hard for my colleagues at work (most of them biologists who were never exposed to programming), so I decided to write my own book (tinyurl.com/biopython )<br>I think "Learning Python" is a must have for the seasoned programmer who wants to learn Python.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked this book ( at least first ed. , the one I read ) .This book made me love Python .
But I found it too hard for my colleagues at work ( most of them biologists who were never exposed to programming ) , so I decided to write my own book ( tinyurl.com/biopython ) I think " Learning Python " is a must have for the seasoned programmer who wants to learn Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked this book (at least first ed., the one I read).This book made me love Python.
But I found it too hard for my colleagues at work (most of them biologists who were never exposed to programming), so I decided to write my own book (tinyurl.com/biopython )I think "Learning Python" is a must have for the seasoned programmer who wants to learn Python.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238846</id>
	<title>Re:Better Than First Edition?</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1266846120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition, although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement. The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half. I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured, "Ah, an O'Reilly book!" Big mistake.</i> </p><p>That pretty much sums up my feelings towards Lutz' other ORA book <i>Programming Pyhton</i>.  However, I have to say I found <i>Learning Python</i> quite serviceable (I learnt python).  It had the virtue of being small enough to allow a programmer to pick the basics of the language up in a week, very much like Schwartz and Christiansen's <i>Learning Perl</i>.</p><p>It only covered python 1.x though, and with 2.2 the language changed considerably (and much for the better imo).  I looked at the 2nd edition and it was not only updated, but also expanded, making it less useful as a quick intro.  I note the 4th edition is now 1216 pages up from the 1st editions ca. 350.  So I don't imagine that has gotten any better.</p><p> <i>Endless bits about immutability, without hints as to why I ought to care</i> </p><p>Sorry?!  In the 1st ed., mutability is mention about half a dozen times.  Not enough imo given it's great gotcha potential.  I'm wondering if were talking about the same book?</p><p> <i>I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now, but to start with it seems<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... strange. I was not transitioning to Python from shell programming</i> </p><p>Yeah wouldn't it be great it the shell had an interactive prompt?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p> <i>Lambda expressions, entirely too early.</i> </p><p>Perhaps.</p><p> <i>Not a great deal of attention paid to idiom, which is just about central to learning a new language.</i> </p><p>I do have to agree with you there.  Especially in a language where the community gets all fussy about what is and what is not "pythonic."  Martelli's books do a much better job there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition , although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement .
The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half .
I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured , " Ah , an O'Reilly book !
" Big mistake .
That pretty much sums up my feelings towards Lutz ' other ORA book Programming Pyhton .
However , I have to say I found Learning Python quite serviceable ( I learnt python ) .
It had the virtue of being small enough to allow a programmer to pick the basics of the language up in a week , very much like Schwartz and Christiansen 's Learning Perl.It only covered python 1.x though , and with 2.2 the language changed considerably ( and much for the better imo ) .
I looked at the 2nd edition and it was not only updated , but also expanded , making it less useful as a quick intro .
I note the 4th edition is now 1216 pages up from the 1st editions ca .
350. So I do n't imagine that has gotten any better .
Endless bits about immutability , without hints as to why I ought to care Sorry ? !
In the 1st ed. , mutability is mention about half a dozen times .
Not enough imo given it 's great gotcha potential .
I 'm wondering if were talking about the same book ?
I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now , but to start with it seems ... strange. I was not transitioning to Python from shell programming Yeah would n't it be great it the shell had an interactive prompt ?
: P Lambda expressions , entirely too early .
Perhaps. Not a great deal of attention paid to idiom , which is just about central to learning a new language .
I do have to agree with you there .
Especially in a language where the community gets all fussy about what is and what is not " pythonic .
" Martelli 's books do a much better job there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I sincerely hope that this version is better than the first edition, although anything short of a random re-arrangement of pages would serve as an improvement.
The first edition actually delayed my initial use of Python by about a year and a half.
I had heard wonderful things about the language so I figured, "Ah, an O'Reilly book!
" Big mistake.
That pretty much sums up my feelings towards Lutz' other ORA book Programming Pyhton.
However, I have to say I found Learning Python quite serviceable (I learnt python).
It had the virtue of being small enough to allow a programmer to pick the basics of the language up in a week, very much like Schwartz and Christiansen's Learning Perl.It only covered python 1.x though, and with 2.2 the language changed considerably (and much for the better imo).
I looked at the 2nd edition and it was not only updated, but also expanded, making it less useful as a quick intro.
I note the 4th edition is now 1216 pages up from the 1st editions ca.
350.  So I don't imagine that has gotten any better.
Endless bits about immutability, without hints as to why I ought to care Sorry?!
In the 1st ed., mutability is mention about half a dozen times.
Not enough imo given it's great gotcha potential.
I'm wondering if were talking about the same book?
I can appreciate the use of the interactive prompt now, but to start with it seems ... strange. I was not transitioning to Python from shell programming Yeah wouldn't it be great it the shell had an interactive prompt?
:P Lambda expressions, entirely too early.
Perhaps. Not a great deal of attention paid to idiom, which is just about central to learning a new language.
I do have to agree with you there.
Especially in a language where the community gets all fussy about what is and what is not "pythonic.
"  Martelli's books do a much better job there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31241918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31240780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31258558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31240428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31263386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1430219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31240428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31263386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31258558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31241918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31242122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31240780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31237164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31238636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31239068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31236194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1430219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31235700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1430219.31244428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
