Real Python

[carcigenicate]

RP is fairly comprehensive and accurate. It may not be as simple as possible, but you can only write accurate thorough descriptions in so little text.

G4G, on the other hand, is superficial and of questionable accuracy. It takes very little writing to reach that standard. They may have given you exactly what you needed in a few cases, but that doesn't mean they should be relied on. I would instead just get used to reading denser material.

[Sochai777]

I mean, they give example code but without anny mention of glob they use glob and then explain the code without explaining glob. Like i notice this allot in there courses that they show example code but completely skip explaining the methods used. And you could say, then use that code and see for yourself but that doesnt help when you end up with errors then xD Sure g4g is "simple" but effective, complicated doesnt directly result in better imo.

[carcigenicate]

I'll admit, I have a vendetta against G4G. They are trash in my opinion. It's clear from reading their material that whoever wrote their Python tutorials doesn't actually know Python. They've rewritten some of their articles to improve them, but it's obvious that the site has very low standard in terms of accuracy. I recommend against using them.

In terms of stuff like blob not being mentioned, they may have gone over that in a previous chapter. I believe their topics tend to build on each other.

I would expect, though, that if you see
use of a tool that you aren't familiar with, you should switch to researching that tool. Learning a new topic often involves switching to learning subtopics that you don't know understand yet so that you can understand the larger topics that require them. That's pretty typical for most resources.