If C++ docs are "easy" to convert in your head to Python.
It does help if YOU KNOW how to program C++ first.
So much for learning Python as a first computer language!
And if you have to learn C++ first, then why do you need Python?
Spend a few hours learning C++ syntax. It is easy. And you'll then be
able to use all the 'hard' documentation that you couldn't before.
The reasons that people use Python, as opposed to C++, are varied and
nontrivial. If you don't know the reasons why /you/ use Python as
opposed to other languages, then why don't you give C++, Java, Scheme,
etc., a shot. If you find that they float your boat better than Python,
then use them. No one is forcing you to use Python. No one is forcing
you to use wxPython or PyGTK or PyQT. But understand that sometimes you
will need to /learn/ in order to use.
Why do all programmers seem to think good documention is optional?
Or an exercise left to the reader?
The wxWindows documentation is fairly optimal for C++ programmers. It
is tolerable for Python programmers. Why? Because a large portion of
Python programmers knew C/C++ before finding Python, and it is an easy
translation. Those people that only know Python are limiting themselves
intellectually. Learning other languages and methodologies will allow
them to understand the context of Python, and in the case of learning
C++, will allow them to use documentation that they couldn't before.
The fact is, C++ function calls are self-documenting, where each
argument tells you what its type is:
wxButton(wxWindow* parent, wxWindowID id, const wxString& label, const
wxPoint& pos, const wxSize& size = wxDefaultSize, long style = 0, const
wxValidator& validator, const wxString& name = "button")
It is relatively easy for someone who knows the general syntax of C++ to
have no problems using the same documentation. And as I said earlier,
learning general C++ syntax is easy. Heck, if hundreds of thousands of
undergraduate computer science majors can do it between ~1990 and ~1999,
then you (and everyone else) can too.
Documentation quality tells a lot about the programmer.
If a programmer can't communicate to his users how his program works.
It is a warning sign that the program has not been fully designed, but
hacked together haphazardly.
Ahh, but as I said earlier, wxWindows C++ documentation is high quality.
Translating everything from C++ to Python would take a shitload of
time, and wouldn't necessarily gain anything. 'Fixing' the above call
would result in:
wxButton(parent, id, label, pos = wxDefaultPosition, size =
wxDefaultSize, style = 0, validator = None, name = "button")
But how has the call been simplified? Now we need to spend 20 lines
telling people exactly what types of things need to be passed, where the
original C++ documentation did just fine.
Furthermore, wxWindows people wrote the documentation for C++
developers. The group of people wrapping wxWindows calls for Python
have no reason to spend their time 'fixing' the hundreds of pages of
documentation, when a resonably intelligent Python programmer should be
able to spend an hour learning general C++ syntax, and have no problems
understanding the wxWindows documentation.
It is not a matter of poor design, or poor-quality software, it is a
matter of; it is already documented in a reasonable format. Those who
don't find the format reasonable, have limited programming experience in
the first place, are not self-motivated enough to learn the syntax, and
no amount of documentation will help them.
Hell, take for example the 10 posts in the last couple weeks about, "how
do I start up an external program from Python, I've looked at the
documentation, but it isn't possible". There are no less than 22 calls
that allow you to start an external program, all fully documented.
Apparently they haven't spent 5 minutes reading through the os module.
Say, like on the Spirit Mars Rover.
It is working now. They fixed it. I'd say that the ability to write
software that can recover from failures is an example of good software,
From samp0082_at_umn_dot_edu Sun Feb 1 22:25:16 2004
From: samp0082_at_umn_dot_edu (Michael Sampson)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:25:16 -0600
Subject: Loading a Cookie from a Dictonary
I'm using the Cookie module.
Say I have something that looks like this
c = Cookie.Cookie()
What would the format of aDictornary be, I've looked around the net and I
can only find examples on how to format the input to load if it is a string.
The best info on this I could find is
Loading cookies from a dictionary 'd'
is equivalent to calling:
map(Cookie.__setitem__, d.keys(), d.values())
I just need a few examples with multiple cookies and I should be able to
figure it out from there.