Is anyone else a little confused as to why Bruce Eckel would be
simultaneously
- learning about monads and flatmap on the mailing list (good on him!)
- writing a Scala book to teach "beginners and experienced programmers"
about the concepts of Scala (huh?)
Should we be getting in on this book-writing game too?
> Is anyone else a little confused as to why Bruce Eckel would be
> simultaneously
> - learning about monads and flatmap on the mailing list (good on him!)
> - writing a Scala book to teach "beginners and experienced
> programmers" about the concepts of Scala (huh?)
> Should we be getting in on this book-writing game too?
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Melbourne Scala User Group" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to scala-melb@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> scala-melb+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/scala-melb?hl=en-GB.
It depends on your goal of writing the book. Do you want to make money
or teach people who are willing to learn? What if you had to sacrifice
one for the other?
> It depends on your goal of writing the book. Do you want to make money
> or teach people who are willing to learn? What if you had to sacrifice
> one for the other?
> What is confusing exactly anyway?
Yes I suppose so. In the world of rainbows and unicorns I like to think I
live in, authors owe their readers a certain amount of authority on their
given topic, to justify the outlay for the purchase. The alternative
seems openly dishonourable to me -- that's why I was surprised.
I remember a blog post a while back where someone suggested that it was
dishonest to even prepare for a talk/presentation, because if you don't
already know it off the top of your head, then you don't know it well
enough to present. I think that's a bit extreme, but I think there's some
truth in that too.
> It depends on your goal of writing the book. Do you want to make money
> or teach people who are willing to learn? What if you had to sacrifice
> one for the other?
> What is confusing exactly anyway?
> Yes I suppose so. In the world of rainbows and unicorns I like to
> think I live in, authors owe their readers a certain amount of
> authority on their given topic, to justify the outlay for the
> purchase. The alternative seems openly dishonourable to me -- that's
> why I was surprised.
> I remember a blog post a while back where someone suggested that it
> was dishonest to even prepare for a talk/presentation, because if you
> don't already know it off the top of your head, then you don't know it
> well enough to present. I think that's a bit extreme, but I think
> there's some truth in that too.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Melbourne Scala User Group" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to scala-melb@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> scala-melb+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/scala-melb?hl=en-GB.
It could be counter-argued that maybe that author[ity] does not know the
subject that well, but better than many -- their target audience. It can
also be counter-argued that an author may not know the subject as well
as some, but can present it better. I totally do not buy these
arguments, but I can see how they might be appealing to an observer who
doesn't know any better.
I like to think of a subject on which I am clueless, like maybe, how to
fly a fighter aircraft beyond an understanding of the principles of
flight, then consider if I'd be able to tell the difference between a
knowledgeable presenter or just someone who knows a little bit more than
I do -- I doubt it.
> I like to think of a subject on which I am clueless, like maybe, how to
> fly a fighter aircraft beyond an understanding of the principles of flight,
> then consider if I'd be able to tell the difference between a knowledgeable
> presenter or just someone who knows a little bit more than I do -- I doubt
> it.
> A good example is science popularisers like Carl Sagan, Simon Singh, Ben
Goldacre, etc. While there were many scientists more knowledgeable and
qualified, I'm sure as hell glad that Carl Sagan wrote books. So I don't
have a problem with this.
I can't, though, imagine Carl Sagan getting on the phone to the astronomy
department halfway through filming/writing Cosmos and asking "So how do
these galaxy things work again?" This is my problem with Mr Eckel here;
if he was getting some pointers on some advanced or esoteric FP/Category
theory techniques, fair enough; he could write a perfectly adequate
introductory text without grokking the hairy stuff. But monads/flatmap?
Fraud seems too strong a word, but you shouldn't be writing a book on Scala
without knowing this kind of thing beforehand.
Or maybe he wants to see what kind of errors potential readers are making
when talking about these concepts?
We could spend hours trying to read meaning into his actions, but we'll
never really know what he is up to until someone actually asks him and
gets an honest reply...
Martin
On 4 September 2012 13:47, Ken Scambler <ken.scamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like to think of a subject on which I am clueless, like maybe, how to
>> fly a fighter aircraft beyond an understanding of the principles of flight,
>> then consider if I'd be able to tell the difference between a knowledgeable
>> presenter or just someone who knows a little bit more than I do -- I doubt
>> it.
>> A good example is science popularisers like Carl Sagan, Simon Singh, Ben
> Goldacre, etc. While there were many scientists more knowledgeable and
> qualified, I'm sure as hell glad that Carl Sagan wrote books. So I don't
> have a problem with this.
> I can't, though, imagine Carl Sagan getting on the phone to the astronomy
> department halfway through filming/writing Cosmos and asking "So how do
> these galaxy things work again?" This is my problem with Mr Eckel here;
> if he was getting some pointers on some advanced or esoteric FP/Category
> theory techniques, fair enough; he could write a perfectly adequate
> introductory text without grokking the hairy stuff. But monads/flatmap?
> Fraud seems too strong a word, but you shouldn't be writing a book on Scala
> without knowing this kind of thing beforehand.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Melbourne Scala User Group" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to scala-melb@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> scala-melb+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/scala-melb?hl=en-GB.
I think you could write a decent book on Scala without knowing the definition of a Monad (indeed I think Martin Odersky's book [ which I really like ] only mentions monads once in passing when describing the most general form of the for comprehensions).
On the other hand I find it hard to imagine how you could have written a lot of Scala and not have realized how useful the flatMap function is (even I find that I use it frequently in practice, and I am a recalcitrant user of null pointers and at least 1% vars). While I am tempted to say that any book written by someone without a lot of practical experience is not worth reading, there is a real chicken and egg problem with relatively obscure languages in that there are not enough people who have used the language in their day job for years, and who are able and interested in writing a good book on it. So I think the answer to your question is YES, we should be getting in on this book writing game. Someone has to. Note that I am not volunteering... by "we" I mean "you". :-) Writing a book is hard.
> someone suggested that it was dishonest to even prepare for a
talk/presentation, because if you don't already know it off the top of your head, then you don't know it well enough to present.
The talks I have gotten the most out of have been rambling "poorly" prepared talks by an expert on the field who lets me see how an expert in the field thinks. If I want a well prepared talk, I will read a (well prepared) textbook - I can read faster than someone can speak. But most students disagree with me. (I remember one class I had where the feedback from the students was "one person really liked it, but everyone else wished it was better prepared").
I will put forward another example - the Feynmann lectures in physics. They were well prepared, by one of the best in the field, and were generally considered as excellent and fascinating by other experts in the field - but the students doing the actual course did poorly. So maybe we should just be happy that there is another Scala book out there, and who knows, it may turn out to be good for some people. If not, then it will probably fade into obscurity and better books will be written and little harm done.
As a side note, I would like to point out that Scala's
for-comprehensions operate on semi-monads; structures supporting
flatMap+map (filter aside).
This is actually a really useful property, because it turns out that
there are many structures supporting flatMap+map, but not point and
there are many operations derivable from flatMap+map without requiring
point. In short, semi-monads (invented term, not in common use) arise in
practice far more often than monads. We like to think of this as The
Semigroupoid Way of Thinking. Please join our cult.
> I think you could write a decent book on Scala without knowing the > definition of a Monad (indeed I think Martin Odersky's book [ which I > really like ] only mentions monads once in passing when describing the most > general form of the for comprehensions).
> On the other hand I find it hard to imagine how you could have written a > lot of Scala and not have realized how useful the flatMap function is (even > I find that I use it frequently in practice, and I am a recalcitrant user > of null pointers and at least 1% vars). While I am tempted to say that any > book written by someone without a lot of practical experience is not worth > reading, there is a real chicken and egg problem with relatively obscure > languages in that there are not enough people who have used the language in > their day job for years, and who are able and interested in writing a good > book on it. So I think the answer to your question is YES, we should be > getting in on this book writing game. Someone has to. Note that I am not > volunteering... by "we" I mean "you". :-) Writing a book is hard.
>> someone suggested that it was dishonest to even prepare for a > talk/presentation, because if you don't already know it off the top of your > head, then you don't know it well enough to present.
> The talks I have gotten the most out of have been rambling "poorly" > prepared talks by an expert on the field who lets me see how an expert in > the field thinks. If I want a well prepared talk, I will read a (well > prepared) textbook - I can read faster than someone can speak. But most > students disagree with me. (I remember one class I had where the feedback > from the students was "one person really liked it, but everyone else wished > it was better prepared").
> I will put forward another example - the Feynmann lectures in physics. They > were well prepared, by one of the best in the field, and were generally > considered as excellent and fascinating by other experts in the field - but > the students doing the actual course did poorly. So maybe we should just be > happy that there is another Scala book out there, and who knows, it may > turn out to be good for some people. If not, then it will probably fade > into obscurity and better books will be written and little harm done.
