Having never seen PPSI's "Python Quick Reference" as advertised
on pythonpros.com on paper I wonder how it compares to Mark Lutz'
"Python Pocket Reference"? I understand the former is much shorter,
but I wonder if it will be continued, filling a different niche,
updated to 1.5.2 (if need be) or swallowed one day by O'Reilly,
too? I think they are already selling or giving away reference
cards for GNU Emacs and the like.



Dinu C. Gherman : Women inspire us to great things and
: prevent us from achieving them. (Dumas)
LHS International AG : http://www.lhsgroup.com
8050 Zurich : http://www.zurich.ch
Switzerland : http://pgp.ai.mit.edu
: mobile://49.172.3060751
Vote against SPAM on http://www.politik-digital.de/spam

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Search Discussions

  • Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) at Jun 16, 1999 at 1:22 pm

    "Dinu C. Gherman" wrote:
    Having never seen PPSI's "Python Quick Reference" as advertised
    on pythonpros.com on paper I wonder how it compares to Mark Lutz'
    "Python Pocket Reference"?
    *Drumroll* - they're different. There, that was a surprise.

    But seriously, I do think they address different sorts of minds/niches,

    The PPSI quick ref is a "traditional" reference card. It is suitable
    for standing up on end on one's desk, or for losing amidst the
    paperwork on same when it falls over. It doesn't fit in my pocket
    (or at least not without risk of crumpling, which I don't want to do).
    It was evidently written with care, and it is a reference I find very
    useful as it is formatted in a way I find easy to look at and scan.
    Compare it to the "traditional" Emacs ref card.

    Lutz's pocket reference is a little book, which DOES fit in my pocket,
    and because it is a book it is rather more robust. It is, of course,
    also harder to lay down (open) on the desk without destroying it. I
    find the typesetting to be a bit "loose" for my taste, with a
    corresponding spread of information over pages. It contains extra
    information about non-directly-Python things (e.g., [X]Emacs Python
    mode, etc.), and a lot more text attempting to give short explanations
    (which PPSI QR does not). There are some inaccuracies, but that is
    inevitable. Probably true of the QR as well.

    Personally, I think I would prefer the "tutorial" section out of the
    back of Programming Python if I had to have one pocket reference from
    him, but I suspect that would be harder to do "politically".

    I am happy to have both - I will carry the Lutz in my pocket if I want
    a portable ref, and keep the QR in one place so it doesn't get bent
    (damn, I should have bought 2 for myself). If I had to have one I'd go
    for the QR, but that may just be me.

    As to futures - I hope the PPSI will bring out another edition some
    day, but I doubt it is necessary yet.

    Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) http://www.tibsnjoan.demon.co.uk/
    My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppython-list @
postedJun 16, '99 at 11:19a
activeJun 16, '99 at 1:22p



site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase