You're right that Python 3.15 is not fully released yet, but it's in prerelease which is defined as:
"""
After the first beta, no new features can go in, but feature fixes (including significant changes to new features), bug fixes, and security fixes are accepted for the upcoming feature release.
"""
So it's a fairly well known target. Bruce Eckel published the first edition of this book a quarter of a century ago - he has a pretty good handle on the progression of Python.
I think this is great, because it prepares you for the Python coding style for now to in two years, in contrast to from two years ago to now, so the information stays relevant longer.
Since this is autogenerated, is it possible that it's going to be auto updates? When I feed it into an LLM, do you think it's going to improve the output of the code, or will it need additional prompting?
That's disappointing. We should be able to take the interpreter code, turn it into a book, and then make an LLM read it to improve the code people write.
I think I started in late 1990 but I did not like it.
Java has much improved though. Slow improvements, probably
in part due to Kotlin, but it has gotten better since then.
Even though I still think it is needlessly too verbose.
The "Thinking in" series shaped how an entire generation learned to program. What made those books work wasn't the language coverage, it was that Eckel focused on mental models rather than syntax reference. You came away understanding how to think about the language, not just how to write it. Curious whether that approach translates well to Python, which arguably has a less opinionated object model than Java did.
I indeed find the formatting quality of the site to be superior. As mentioned below by the author.
"""
I know some people don’t like AI. Without it, this book wouldn’t exist. The book is free, so if AI bothers you more than the resulting product might benefit you, please ignore this book.
Using Claude made me realize how many compromises I’ve made on books in the past. I would get a good idea about something (for example, automatically interleaving commented output in the listings). I either couldn’t implement it, or it seemed too hard, so I didn’t do it. But with AI I can explore and often implement every whim, from things as seemingly straightforward as inserting a new chapter to ones as daunting as that commented-output system. The result is much better than anything I managed before. I keep going until I’ve tweaked everything that occurs to me.
"""
> “But with AI I can explore and often implement every whim, from things as seemingly straightforward as…”
I had a powerful misreading. I thought the author was saying they used AI to help write chapters they had struggled with before (uh? Yea, it seemed strange for the author of a Python book having trouble with Python…). How about writing custom chapters on request? Surely something that AI can do without trouble. At the right price point I would love a non-linear reading of the book and all that’s necessary for my to understand finally how hooks and callbacks work.
I think what people call 'AI slop' is probably just unedited content. I actually like this content quite a bit. Rather than whether it was made with AI, I think what matters is whether it accurately matches the specification
It depends which people. For a very large contingent “slop” describes ALL GenAI output and is a more of a moral commentary on the use of the technology than an assessment of its qualitative features (it is, really, a statement that the use of AI makes it morally unacceptable to even consider its features.)
For others, sure, both “AI” and “slop" narrow rhe scope compared to the other one used alone.
I posted this link and found out about it on episide 121 of a podcast called Happy Path Programming, which Bruce Eckel hosts. I was aware that he had started and subsequently abandoned writing the book, so was excited to hear he had used Claude to clean up all of his old material for the book.
While the web version of this book looks fine, I only read books on my Kindle (with KOReader). Thankfully all I had to do was clone the source repo (https://github.com/BruceEckel/ThinkingInPython) and run `make epub` to get a nicely formatted file! It is a bit on the larger side at 7.4MB, but beggars can't be choosers... (On second thought, I'm gonna submit a PR to shrink it as it's mostly from the cover image being 6MB!)
The author is apparently still in the early stages of revising what the AI wrote, according to the README, so readers might want to hold off a bit on downloading the epub.
But both the license terms (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) and the repo's LICENSE.md appear to agree that distributing the epub is OK.
As mentioned in another comment, I don't think I'm allowed to distribute my modified EPUB as per the repo's license (nor do I really know the best way to do so, I don't use cloud storage). That said, I have written an Issue suggesting making an Action to build EPUBs and place them in the repo's releases: https://github.com/BruceEckel/ThinkingInPython/issues/12
If the people here comment on it, the author might be inclined to add this.
I would only wish that on my enemies... For god's sake, if you're going to think in a programming language, pick one with strict referential transparency.
I had created something along the same lines - a platform for devs to understand Python deeply, and was trying to see if there was a market for such content. The thing that I realised is that even with AI, there has to be distribution available for things like this to gain traction.
Nice to see this! Personally, I prefer CC BY-SA to CC BY-NC-ND, but it is certainly much better than 100% protected. Over the years, I've built and maintain a list[1] of CC BY-SA Python books that have no access barriers, such as mandatory account creation or intrusive web trackers.
> Python exists to improve your productivity. The language aims to aid you as much as possible. It tries to hinder you as little as possible. It does not impose arbitrary rules or force a particular set of features.
Except that everything needs to be reified into a top-level class with a unique name, even if it's just a piece data that you pass into/return from a single function. Also whitespace matters.
I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. You can return unnamed lists, dictionaries, numbers, among others, or combinations of any of these. With some very light syntax sugar magic you can even make returning tuples look like your returning multiple values.
I'm not sure if I would call whitespace-as-syntax arbitrary, though it is opinionated. I admit though that for me it started feeling like a time saver once I got over my anti whitespace as syntax zealotry.
I've only skimmed the book and even though it was clearly written with the help of AI, there is some very good (and for the Python world novel) stuff in it. I particularly liked the chapter on effects.[0] I very much share the author's opinion that properly managing effects is the future:
> The history of programming is a history of scaling barriers. Each time, the pattern is the same. Something the programmer tracks by hand works fine in small programs. Systems grow until hand-tracking fails. The solution moves that tracking into the language or the toolchain, and a generation later, nobody can imagine doing it by hand. […] Effects are the barrier we are inside right now, which is why it is hard to see.
Since 2020 the entire Python ecosystem is a tightly organized, hierarchical structure that only serves the old boys country club to keep their overpaid positions in the industry. Many of these are mediocre, they just rule, let external people do real and hard work and then take the credit.
Any dissent is squashed, the official authorities have no qualms about lying and controlling the infrastructure so that no dissent can he heard.
It won't change since their inflated salaries depend on it, unless corporations catch on and fire them (like Google did).
I've used and been involved in my Python community since the late '90s, and I wish I could say you're totally off the mark here, but... It hits closer to the mark than I'd like. There is a subset of the Python community that I dearly love, but these days the bulk of the Python leadership makes me reluctant to be involved with it.
I guess maybe it's a time marches on thing and the leadership serves a very different community than the one I remember. Which is fine if that's what's happening. But I'm not entirely convinced that that is the extent of the story.
> Better invest in learning a language with multiple implementations like C++
As someone who has spent a little too much of their life having to deal with one cross-implementation C++ incompatibility or another, all I have to say is "good luck with that."
> Since 2020 the entire Python ecosystem is a tightly organized, hierarchical structure that only serves the old boys country club
Python leadership isn't great, but again to compare it to c++ at least they're not defending and keeping around a convicted rapist and possessor of CSAM.
59 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 26.7 ms ] threadhttps://thinkinginpython.com/01_Introduction.html
That's a bit weird, Python 3.15 isn't even fully released yet.
""" After the first beta, no new features can go in, but feature fixes (including significant changes to new features), bug fixes, and security fixes are accepted for the upcoming feature release. """
So it's a fairly well known target. Bruce Eckel published the first edition of this book a quarter of a century ago - he has a pretty good handle on the progression of Python.
Definitions and status for all releases is at https://devguide.python.org/versions/
Especially if it gives us an insight into what prompts were given to generate something we approve of vs. something we disapprove.
And then heavily edited by the author, over several iterations. There is no auto-update to create something similar.
Java has much improved though. Slow improvements, probably in part due to Kotlin, but it has gotten better since then. Even though I still think it is needlessly too verbose.
""" I know some people don’t like AI. Without it, this book wouldn’t exist. The book is free, so if AI bothers you more than the resulting product might benefit you, please ignore this book.
Using Claude made me realize how many compromises I’ve made on books in the past. I would get a good idea about something (for example, automatically interleaving commented output in the listings). I either couldn’t implement it, or it seemed too hard, so I didn’t do it. But with AI I can explore and often implement every whim, from things as seemingly straightforward as inserting a new chapter to ones as daunting as that commented-output system. The result is much better than anything I managed before. I keep going until I’ve tweaked everything that occurs to me. """
I had a powerful misreading. I thought the author was saying they used AI to help write chapters they had struggled with before (uh? Yea, it seemed strange for the author of a Python book having trouble with Python…). How about writing custom chapters on request? Surely something that AI can do without trouble. At the right price point I would love a non-linear reading of the book and all that’s necessary for my to understand finally how hooks and callbacks work.
For eg. If you're generating a whole document with a single prompt, say "write a document on how to implement this"
vs.
"Find various approaches to implement this. These are the approaches we already have. These are the constraints we currently have."
Then verify the generated text, remove useless hallucinations. Use the same AI to verify the generated output.
For others, sure, both “AI” and “slop" narrow rhe scope compared to the other one used alone.
https://amzn.eu/d/03uSE3im
But both the license terms (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) and the repo's LICENSE.md appear to agree that distributing the epub is OK.
Unfortunately since I modified the cover image (I ended up resizing it) I don't think I'd be allowed to distribute my EPUB file.
If the people here comment on it, the author might be inclined to add this.
[1] https://nocomplexity.com/documents/pythonbook/bookreferences...
https://bash-org-archive.com/?400459
https://allendowney.github.io/ThinkPython/
Except that everything needs to be reified into a top-level class with a unique name, even if it's just a piece data that you pass into/return from a single function. Also whitespace matters.
I'm not sure if I would call whitespace-as-syntax arbitrary, though it is opinionated. I admit though that for me it started feeling like a time saver once I got over my anti whitespace as syntax zealotry.
> The history of programming is a history of scaling barriers. Each time, the pattern is the same. Something the programmer tracks by hand works fine in small programs. Systems grow until hand-tracking fails. The solution moves that tracking into the language or the toolchain, and a generation later, nobody can imagine doing it by hand. […] Effects are the barrier we are inside right now, which is why it is hard to see.
[0]: https://thinkinginpython.com/44_Effect_Management.html
Since 2020 the entire Python ecosystem is a tightly organized, hierarchical structure that only serves the old boys country club to keep their overpaid positions in the industry. Many of these are mediocre, they just rule, let external people do real and hard work and then take the credit.
Any dissent is squashed, the official authorities have no qualms about lying and controlling the infrastructure so that no dissent can he heard.
It won't change since their inflated salaries depend on it, unless corporations catch on and fire them (like Google did).
Supplementary reading:
https://zedshaw.com/blog/2020-10-07-authoritarianism-of-code...
https://www.fast.ai/posts/2020-10-28-code-of-conduct.html
https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestr...
Better invest in learning a language with multiple implementations like C++. Heck, even Java/Oracle are more democratic than Python.
I guess maybe it's a time marches on thing and the leadership serves a very different community than the one I remember. Which is fine if that's what's happening. But I'm not entirely convinced that that is the extent of the story.
As someone who has spent a little too much of their life having to deal with one cross-implementation C++ incompatibility or another, all I have to say is "good luck with that."
> Since 2020 the entire Python ecosystem is a tightly organized, hierarchical structure that only serves the old boys country club
Python leadership isn't great, but again to compare it to c++ at least they're not defending and keeping around a convicted rapist and possessor of CSAM.
There are only three C++ implementations left and one of them is Windows-only.
But that version seems to have some remnants left from Java version of the book, such as talking about visibility modifiers in the testing chapter.