Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
I got an email from the publisher of my D Cookbook asking me to write another book on D. From their email: "We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '. This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D programming." I had to say no; I just don't have that kind of time right now. However, they asked me to ask here if anyone would be interested. If you are, email me and I'll get you more information and put you in contact with the Packt editors.
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 16:25 +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > I got an email from the publisher of my D Cookbook asking me to > write another book on D. From their email: > > "We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '. > This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision > behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks > specific to D programming." Uurrr… I guess they have redefined the term "commissioned". I would have said "they have permission to commission/contract". > I had to say no; I just don't have that kind of time right now. > However, they asked me to ask here if anyone would be interested. If > you are, email me and I'll get you more information and put you in > contact with the Packt editors. What is their workflow these days? When they asked me to do a Python book and later a Groovy/GPars one, they were tied to a Word-based workflow for authors. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 16:25:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I got an email from the publisher of my D Cookbook asking me to write another book on D. From their email: "We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '. This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D programming." I had to say no; I just don't have that kind of time right now. However, they asked me to ask here if anyone would be interested. If you are, email me and I'll get you more information and put you in contact with the Packt editors. Thanks for the Info. I might take the bait :)
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 16:51:20 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: I would have said "they have permission to commission/contract". yeah, me too, but I know what they meant. What is their workflow these days? idk if it has changed in the last year, but mine was done on MS Word as well. They provide a template then you follow it and give them the .doc. The editors then give back the .doc with comments attached.
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 16:54 +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > idk if it has changed in the last year, but mine was done on MS Word > as well. They provide a template then you follow it and give them > the .doc. The editors then give back the .doc with comments attached. s/Word/LibreOffice/, I do not have Windows, let alone Word. The core problem with the workflow, is that it assumes the author is only there to provide content and has no say in any other aspect of the book. As someone more used to providing press PDF this is irritating. However I could get over it, if the workflow involved a source I can put into version control. Obviously XeLaTeX is the correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best. Any suggestion of DocBook/XML as authored source is generally met with derision, especially given there is AsciiDoc. I have to admit, doing a Go or D book, is kind of appealing. Technically I am supposed to be doing "Python for Rookies, 2e" but it isn't happening for reasons I would rather not let the NSA know about. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 16:25:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: "We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '. This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D programming." That doesn't really sound like "Learning D". It sounds more like " Why D is superior"
Re: Calypso: Direct and full interfacing to C++
Ok, I have pushed my changes to Calypso on github. I did this mostly for testing because I wanted to make sure things still compiled on linux. Unfortunately, we need specific versions of llvm and clang to get things compiled as ldc2 hasn't been updated to the bleeding edge as of today. The versions I used on Win64 and Linux (didn't test OS X, but I can if needed) are: llvm: 77b557430c1315ef50c3256cdc5e73ac54d0154e Clang: baa701f47b7856f848080b51bc4fbcf984d29faa So, it took me a while to figure out that some problems weren't ours, but rather with compiling calypso (or ldc) with llvm from git today. Things build and will compile D programs as is, but fail on Win64 and Linux today for calypso specific code. Elie, perhaps you can see what is wrong just looking at my revisions? I would suspect the problem is in astunit.cpp because ASTReader is where the error is coming from. Anyways, take a look if you like. I would like to get this problem figured out before importing the last couple days worth of Calypso changes. I'll work on it some more in a few hours since I have a usable linux install again...WIN64 is just painful to work on for me, so I'll get things working and merged on Linux first and then move back to WIN64 :) Thanks, Kelly
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On 2/14/15 9:13 AM, Israel wrote:
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 16:25:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
"We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '.
This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind
this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D
programming."
That doesn't really sound like "Learning D". It sounds more like " Why D
is superior"
Huh? Doesn't seem at all to me.
"Learning furniture maintenance. This book will have approximately 400
pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical
concepts and tasks specific to furniture maintenance."
It's a very generic characterization, even a tad too generic. If I were
an acquisition editor I'd go for more eloquent phrasing ("this book" is
repeated etc).
Andrei
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 17:04:24 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Obviously XeLaTeX is the correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best. During the editing of the Russian translation of TDPL, I've worked in MS Word as well. Probably its main advantage is its collaboration tools: you can see who added or deleted which parts, and toggle between visible edits and final text easily. You can also add comments to a text range; by passing the document along, this made possible even short conversations. What would be the equivalent of such collaboration in a non-MS-Word-based workflow?
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On 2/14/15 9:04 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 16:54 +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: idk if it has changed in the last year, but mine was done on MS Word as well. They provide a template then you follow it and give them the .doc. The editors then give back the .doc with comments attached. s/Word/LibreOffice/, I do not have Windows, let alone Word. The core problem with the workflow, is that it assumes the author is only there to provide content and has no say in any other aspect of the book. As someone more used to providing press PDF this is irritating. However I could get over it, if the workflow involved a source I can put into version control. Obviously XeLaTeX is the correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best. Many publishers may allow you to provide camera-ready copies. Any suggestion of DocBook/XML as authored source is generally met with derision, especially given there is AsciiDoc. You'd be surprised to hear the tooling at the Pragmatic Programmer is all XML based and quite inflexible. Our negotiations broke down over that, in spite of their really beefy financial offering. I have to admit, doing a Go or D book, is kind of appealing. Technically I am supposed to be doing "Python for Rookies, 2e" but it isn't happening for reasons I would rather not let the NSA know about. Go? Urgh. As they say: Come for the concurrency, leave for everything else :o). Andrei
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On 2/14/15 10:15 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 17:04:24 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Obviously XeLaTeX is the correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best. During the editing of the Russian translation of TDPL, I've worked in MS Word as well. Probably its main advantage is its collaboration tools: you can see who added or deleted which parts, and toggle between visible edits and final text easily. You can also add comments to a text range; by passing the document along, this made possible even short conversations. What would be the equivalent of such collaboration in a non-MS-Word-based workflow? Adobe offers commentary tools for PDFs. -- Andrei
Re: Packt is looking for someone to author a "Learning D"
On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 18:15:09 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 17:04:24 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Obviously XeLaTeX is the correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best. During the editing of the Russian translation of TDPL, I've worked in MS Word as well. Probably its main advantage is its collaboration tools: you can see who added or deleted which parts, and toggle between visible edits and final text easily. You can also add comments to a text range; by passing the document along, this made possible even short conversations. What would be the equivalent of such collaboration in a non-MS-Word-based workflow? Well, if you do the document with Latex on git (or some similar version control), you get most of the same stuff. Latex has a comment tool where you can do margin comments if you wish, and of course you can also do comments in the 'code' if you want - they don't show up in the document at all. Heck, I am sure there is a package for everything in Latex if you look hard enough. A MS-word document with 'track changes' on, edited by multiple people, is the greatest eyesore known to humanity. I still don't understand why anyone who had a choice between Latex and MS-Word would pick MS-Word for anything longer than 25 pages... Just my personal opinion as one who recently finished a 200 page thesis in Latex, and is now working for a company where we do all our internal documents in Word. Latex certainly has its ugly warts, but it is so nice for lengthy document1.
