I agree that the average quality of Python instructional material is quite low. The language is very popular, and it's often pitched as a beginner's language or a language for those who are not (or do not want to be) professional programmers. Free (uncurated) platforms like YouTube and LinkedIn make it very easy to distribute poor quality material (and provide very weak feedback to encourage quality improvement.)
I strongly reject any assertion that David Beazley's materials, his instructional abilities, or his capabilities as a programmer are lacking. Having worked with David, I can provide testimonial to his skills (though his body of work speaks for itself.)
The example you highlight amounts to little more than nitpicking, and it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the instructional process. Trust me: I have taught this exact course (as well as “Practical Python”) to numerous corporate audiences.
I strongly reject any assertion that David Beazley's materials, his instructional abilities, or his capabilities as a programmer are lacking. Having worked with David, I can provide testimonial to his skills (though his body of work speaks for itself.)
The example you highlight amounts to little more than nitpicking, and it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the instructional process. Trust me: I have taught this exact course (as well as “Practical Python”) to numerous corporate audiences.