I love python, I really do, and there is a library for everything you can imagine. So when I see things like this:<p><pre><code> c.most_common()[:-n:-1] # n least common elements
</code></pre>
For the love of ceiling_cat, how hard is it to implement a least_common method?
Raymond Hettinger is a great Python educator, and also very active on the mailinglists. He gives talks, too:<p>Easy AI with Python: <a href="http://us.pycon.org/2009/conference/schedule/event/71/" rel="nofollow">http://us.pycon.org/2009/conference/schedule/event/71/</a><p>Four powerful examples of composing Python tools: <a href="http://us.pycon.org/2010/conference/schedule/event/86/" rel="nofollow">http://us.pycon.org/2010/conference/schedule/event/86/</a>
I wish programming documentation in general were divided into two heavily linked parts, one conversational introductory section and one concise and technical reference section (like a manpage). By heavily linked, I mean the "conversational" section should have plenty of links to the reference section inline with the prose and vice versa. I don't like reading references when I don't even see the big picture. On the other hand, I don't like getting too used to intro material because it's too verbose to refer to later. But if the conversational part has links to the reference section and vice versa, I would get into the habit of following the links and gradually familiarizing myself with the layout of the reference section. Unfortunately, as it is, intros rarely have these links or footnotes to the references, and I have to search for items specifically, losing out on the holistic view.
If you want a comprehensive introduction to Python that has no prerequisites, check out "Learning Python" by Mark Lutz. Unlike certain other so-called "introductory texts" this one doesn't presume that you're an expert in similar languages just picking up syntax.