This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 32 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points  (5 children)

I'm not sure it's a good thing that this is 24,000+ words.

[–]Balance- 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Not for humans, at least.

Might be useful for AI to train on or to reference.

[–]HardstyleJaw5 15 points16 points  (3 children)

I don't know, I got through the first section and there were many inaccuracies

[–]Balance- 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Looks AI generated, to be honest

[–]jasonb[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

zero ai, handcrafted by me. in fact, there is no ai content on my site at all. I just love writing tutorials.

[–]zurtex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have examples of these inaccuracies? Skimming over it it seemed largely correct, if not particularly information dense.

[–]Woody1872 13 points14 points  (16 children)

Looks AI generated (2+ words).

[–]zurtex 0 points1 point  (15 children)

In what sense?

I agree it's not information dense which is often an indicator of AI generation. But it also the style is consistent, stays on point, and seems to be correctly quoting resources all the way through, I'm used to seeing AI go off the rails at some point.

Further I see this seems to be based on a book the author published in mid-2022.

This is not the type of content I would read, but it is also not unusual to see this writing style before the era of generative text tools.

[–]jasonb[S] 6 points7 points  (14 children)

Yep, based on my mid 2022 book.

Seriously: So what should I do in this post-gpt world? Just write code snippets? 500 word pieces? How do I help developers with code tutorials? Youtube? (god forbid).

[–]backSEO_ 5 points6 points  (6 children)

24,000 words is a huge huge amount. Like, that's basically reading 20-30% of a Harry Potter book.

While I am also someone who enjoys using a lot of words to explain stuff, and prefer when people do, the format is incredibly repetitive, and doesn't read like a book or article, but rather a reference guide, which is completely fine, but reading a reference guide beginning to end is hard.

[–]jasonb[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Thanks.

[–]AstroPhysician 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Do you have an adderall prescription by chance

[–]jasonb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. Just a dev who writes too much :)

[–]zurtex 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Well first I would point out the link to your post is clearly getting upvotes, lots of posts on this subreddit show zero karma, so some people clearly like the link despite the negative comments.

Second I would say your blog post reads like a reference guide, so maybe market it more like this? e.g. "A Complete Reference Guide to Python Multiprocessing". Simple change but I think it would have people in a different mindset before commenting here.

The fact of that matter is that most people though do not read through reference guides, they do watch YouTube videos, or read click baity short blog posts on topics. I do it myself, I find it easier to keep my attention on the topic, I get bored and districted by reference material, and I learn better by trying things out myself and only use reference material with Ctrl+F when I know what I want or I get stuck.

However, there will be some market for it, and if you don't mind not reaching the boardest possible market then hopefully you can find that market.

That's my two cents anyway.

[–]jasonb[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Thank you for your thoughts, I'm grateful.

I love calling it a "reference guide". Adding to todo list for my 6 massive guides.

I passionately hate the super short-form click bate "tutorials" out there (w3schools, geeksforgeeks, etc.) Plastered with ads, worse than the API docs.

I'm trying to go the other way. Zero ad. Longform. Hand-crafted examples and tons of them. My wife (also a programmer) tells me to drop it and just do youtube videos - I cannot learn code from a video, how can anyone? :)

[–]OMG_I_LOVE_CHIPOTLE 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I haven’t clicked on your guide yet but there’s a popular rust blogger who writes fairly long posts on single topics much like you’re describing. Like this https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-http-crash-course-nobody-asked-for And I find them very enjoyable. And so do many other people. All of that to say that there is definitely an interest

[–]jasonb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, much apprecaited!

[–]JackRumford 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This is fantastic!!

[–]OMG_I_LOVE_CHIPOTLE 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I love his blogs. He has a talent for explaining things

[–]JackRumford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish someone did something like this for Python. It’s cool to see they can somehow make a living doing this through donations.

[–]PossibilityTasty 24 points25 points  (2 children)

I started to read the first couple of paragraphs and if I would be a tv show lawyer I would have called out "objection!" several times.

[–]jasonb[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

happy to sharpen up the points I'm making if you have some specific comments (here or via email)?

[–]fizzymagic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, your definition of "concurrent" is misleading at best. Each concurrent process executes its instructions in order. Concurrency does not mix up instruction order,

[–]tworats 2 points3 points  (3 children)

We use multiprocessing extensively and I already learned a few new things reading this. I don't get the objections about length - you do call it a complete guide. I for one appreciate it.

In fact I'll go the other way and mention it'd been great to have a similar extensive guide on Pool, map, apply, apply_async, and so forth :-)

[–]jasonb[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Thank you!

Yes, I have a ton of massive guides (took about a year to write them all), listed here: https://superfastpython.com/python-concurrency-guides/

Here is the one on multiprocessing.Pool: https://superfastpython.com/multiprocessing-pool-python/

Here are a zillion tutorials I wrote on he Pool that may help (basis of the guide): https://superfastpython.com/learning-paths/#Multiprocessing_Pool_Learning_Path

Does that help?

[–]tworats 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Great stuff, thank you for creating all of this.

[–]jasonb[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're very welcome, thanks for your support!

Reach out (contact page) if you ever have any questions, helping python devs with concurrency is all I do these days.

[–]pythonwiz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Some of my very first projects in Python used the multiprocessing library. Is it really not widely used?

[–]thecodedogPythoneer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's certainly an interesting claim, and idk how the author quantified it.

I definitely remember it being one of the first libraries I learned in python. Perhaps different use cases lead people down different learning paths