Perhaps they're curious about something other than software. I don't know.
But I do know they're remarkably incurious about software. And are trying to write Python applications.
I know some people don't sail out of sight of their home port. I've sailed over a few horizons. It's not courage. It's curiosity. And patience. And preparation.
I find this frustrating. I refuse to write their code for them.
But any advice I give them devolves to "Do you have an example?" With the implicit "Which I can copy and paste?"
Even the few who claim they don't want examples, suffer from a paralyzing level of incuriosity. They can't seem to make search work because they never read beyond the first few results on their first attempt. A lot of people seem to be able to make search work; and the incurious folks seem uniquely paralyzed by search.
And it's an attribute I don't understand.
They read through the multiprocessing module until they got to examples with apply_async() and appear to have stopped reading. They've asked for code reviews on two separate module. Both based on apply_async().
One module was so hopelessly broken it was difficult to make the case that it could never be made to work. There's a way the results of apply_async() have to be consumed, and the code not only did not reflect this, it seemed like they had decided specifically never to consider an alternative. (Spoiler alert, it requires an explicit wait().)
The results were sometimes consumed -- by luck -- and the rest of the time, the app was quirky. It wasn't quirky. It was deplorably wrong. And "reread the apply_async()" advice fell on deaf ears. They couldn't have failed to read the page in the standard library documentation, no, it had to be Python or Windows or me or something.
The other module was a trivial map() application. But. Since apply_async() has an incumbency, there was an amazingly elaborate implementation that amounted to rebuilding
map()with globals and callbacks. This was wrapped by queue processing of Byzantine complexity. The whole mess appeared to stem from an unwillingness to read the documentation past the first example.
What to do?
My current suggestion is to exhaustively enumerate each of the methods for putting work into the processing pool. Write an example of each and every one.
In effect: "Learn the methods by building throw-away code."
I anticipate a series of objections. "Why write throw-away code?" and this one: "That's not realistic, what do you do?"
What do I do?
I write throw-away code.
But that's no substitute for a lack of curiosity.