are Manning books any better these days? They always used to rush the most awful poorly edited and planned content to market to be the first ones with a book on $NewTechnology
1. Section 1.1 shows an APL program "1 2 2 2 2 2 ⊤ n" and says, "The confusion here lies in the fact that you might not know what ⊤ means.". Nope. The confusion is that I don't know what any of the symbols do or how an APL program is structured. I expect this is the case for most readers.
2. There are 3 examples here. The discussions of the examples are not next to the examples. It is all jumbled up and hard to read.
3. The Java example spells main as mian.
4. Section 2 says, "programmers write a lot more code than they read". That is incorrect. For example, normally I read several of the solutions on Stackoverflow before I decide which one to copy and paste :-)
One was actually fantastic quality -- one of the best ML/Python programming books I've come across.
The other was for some specialty GIS work, and it was tremendously terrible quality but the only source available.
Out of all of the books most of them were trash. There was a couple of really good ones in there. But all-over my clear impression from the books was that Packt has basically no lower bar whatsoever on quality.
There are very few cases where I would use Packt, and only after personal recommendations.
(edited to say Apress and not Packt. I'd forgotten which crappy publisher I was dealing with.)
https://github.com/rasbt/python-machine-learning-book-3rd-ed...
It seems to me the inevitable destiny of all "tech" press, start with strong titles and devolve into crap, or to be fairer a crap-shoot.
So now you have:
ALWAYS HAVE BEEN "CRAP" = Packt and Apress
STARTED OK,GOOD NOW MOSTLY CRAP = Pragmatic, Manning, No Starch
STILL OK,GOOD = O'Reilly, CUP
- How to make palindromes with python
- A CSS lexicon,900 terms defined (120 pages)
- The buttons of a PS5 controller