I do agree with you that the average reader appreciate that you minimize on the Why
part. I
probably would have done the same if I'd written it myself (big grin)....
However...
Imagine a Java VM book, when Java was new and hot, explaining everything there was to
know about
the internals of Java VM but didn't market why you should dump your old technology and
start using
Java? Wouldn't that be strange and a missed opportunity for pushing the technology?
Perhaps I was looking too much for Why-related answers due to the fact that I lately
have been
into discussions on why devoting time studing Rotor is a good thing. The opponants
didn't argue
that Rotor was a waste of time, but failed to see the same value I do see in learning
it. If you
don't want to write too much about it I still would like to see your own personal
oppinions, as
authors, on why you write a Rotor book besides "there wasn't one written, so we wrote
one".
Please remeber, this will be a great book and I certainly am awaiting it's release.
Cheers,
Christer
--- Ted Neward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As one of the authors, Christer, frankly, flaming debate is *not*
> necessarily a bad thing here--certainly, Dave, Geoff and I believe we've
> done a good job, but if we thought it were perfect as-is, we wouldn't bother
> having people review it. We want your feedback, we want you to hold up the
> parts you think are lacking for further examination, we want you to roast it
> a little, because if the book can't stand a little toasting, then it's
> probably not ready to release yet. :-)
>
> > Cutting to it, I would have liked a little more elaboration around the Why
> > than the 2 sentences under paragraph "A CLI Implementation in Shared
> Source
> > Rotot" (ch 1 ~p.13). There you start of promising with the words "In
> > particular, the SSCLI had three goals to meet...".
> >
> Hmm. So noted. What would seem sufficient length to spend on this topic, in
> your mind?
>
> Frankly, to be honest, I take as an assumption that the person buying this
> book already knows why they want to spend time with Rotor (they're either
> using this book as part of an academic curriculum, or else they're using
> Rotor as a leg up on the CLR), so we didn't want to spend too much time
> justifying Rotor's existence. Both of those groups already have motive, so
> it's (IMHO) a waste of time to try and motivate them "even more". Thoughts?
>
> Ted Neward
> { .NET && Java } Author, Instructor
> http://www.javageeks.com
> http://www.clrgeeks.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christer Ljung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [DOTNET-ROTOR] Fresh chapters
>
>
> > First of all, don't start a flaming debate of what I write here. Nobody
> > likes that in their inbox. See this a my comments to the authors and If
> you
> > disagree, I'll promise to be stupid here on my own....
> >
> > When reading a book about any topic the What, Why and How questions must
> be
> > approached by the writers to orientate the read, that's basics. Most of us
> > Rotor-geeks skip the What and Why since it's the How that give us the
> > thrills.
> >
> > However, being a How-guy I occationally meet disorientated people in the
> > real world and than the Why question pops up, like "why spending time on
> > Rotor when it's the commecrial product you should
> > focus on?"
> >
> > Cutting to it, I would have liked a little more elaboration around the Why
> > than the 2 sentences under paragraph "A CLI Implementation in Shared
> Source
> > Rotot" (ch 1 ~p.13). There you start of promising with the words "In
> > particular, the SSCLI had three goals to meet...".
> >
> > I still will buy the book and devote time to Rotor, but I would have liked
> > to read the authors oppinion on why I should and perhaps give me another
> > approach on the Why question. Let loose and share you oppinion! When will
> > you write a book about Rotor again?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Christer
> >
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com
