Book reviewer
Steve Heller
which I have brought up to compliance with the C++ standard library.
I've also fixed a number of other minor problems with the book. I
would like it to be reviewed thoroughly before publication by someone
knowledgeable in C++. Is there anyone here who would like to read the
book in manuscript and help me eliminate any final errors?
If so, we will mention in the acknowledgements or foreward that you
have done a technical review of the book. We can also pay a reasonable
review fee for your efforts. Email me with your resume if you are
interested.
--
Steve Heller, WA0CPP
http://www.steveheller.com
Author of "Learning to Program in C++", Who's Afraid of C++?", "Who's Afraid of More C++?",
"Optimizing C++", and other books
Free online versions of "Who's Afraid of C++?" and "Optimizing C++" are now available
at http://www.steveheller.com/whos and http://www.steveheller.com/opt
Stephen Howe
news:8qsobu49rkcc7ds9c...@4ax.com...
> I'm about finished with a major revision of my C++ book for beginners,
> which I have brought up to compliance with the C++ standard library.
> I've also fixed a number of other minor problems with the book. I
> would like it to be reviewed thoroughly before publication by someone
> knowledgeable in C++. Is there anyone here who would like to read the
> book in manuscript and help me eliminate any final errors?
Why not get ACCU to review it?
They _are_ through and some reviewers are connected with ISO C++
standardisation. See
http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/index.htm
But be careful, they might say "Not recommended".
Stephen Howe
Ron Natalie
Stephen Howe wrote:
>
> Why not get ACCU to review it?
> They _are_ through and some reviewers are connected with ISO C++
> standardisation. See
> http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/index.htm
I don't think Steve is overly enamoured with the treatment
his books have gotten at ACCU in the past :-)
Besides, I think he's looking for something more in-depth than
the sort of review done there.
John Harrison
"Stephen Howe" <SPAMstephe...@tnsofres.com> wrote in message
news:3cbc88d6$0$8514$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
They already did, with mixed results.
john
Steve Heller
I assume this is a joke. If so, it's not very funny.
Steve Heller
No, they haven't reviewed my latest book. It's in manuscript at the
moment, so they haven't had a chance at it yet.
John Harrison
> >> Why not get ACCU to review it?
> >> They _are_ through and some reviewers are connected with ISO C++
> >> standardisation. See
> >> http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/index.htm
> >>
> >> But be careful, they might say "Not recommended".
> >>
> >> Stephen Howe
> >>
> >
> >They already did, with mixed results.
>
> No, they haven't reviewed my latest book. It's in manuscript at the
> moment, so they haven't had a chance at it yet.
>
Apologies, I meant that they had reviewed your previous books and therefore
you are aware of them. I.e. I was addressing Stephen.
If its any consolation I don't rate Francis Glassborrows as a reviewer
either.
john
Donovan Rebbechi
Unless the book is published by AW.
--
Donovan
Steve Heller
>> >>
>> >> Why not get ACCU to review it?
>> >> They _are_ through and some reviewers are connected with ISO C++
>> >> standardisation. See
>> >> http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/index.htm
>> >>
>> >> But be careful, they might say "Not recommended".
>> >>
>> >> Stephen Howe
>> >>
>> >
>> >They already did, with mixed results.
>>
>> No, they haven't reviewed my latest book. It's in manuscript at the
>> moment, so they haven't had a chance at it yet.
>>
>
>Apologies, I meant that they had reviewed your previous books and therefore
>you are aware of them. I.e. I was addressing Stephen.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
>If its any consolation I don't rate Francis Glassborrows as a reviewer
>either.
Anyone who would criticize a book because of one of its
acknowledgements is obviously not terribly focused on relevant issues,
is he?
Steve Heller
Good point. Unfortunately, it's "only" with Prentice-Hall.
Stephen Howe
No joke whatsoever. I am deadly serious. Several members of ACCU are
connected with C++ standardisation. They are competent reviewers. Getting
recommendations like books from Nicolai Josuttis, Scott Meyers, Herb Sutter,
Andrei Alexandrescu, Andrew Koenig is like getting a Michelin 3-star award
for a restuarant. The public knows that it is a good place to eat.
Otherwise it is like my English teachers remarks at school, "must try
harder".
Stephen Howe
Stephen Howe
> > They _are_ through and some reviewers are connected with ISO C++
> > standardisation. See
> > http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/index.htm
>
> I don't think Steve is overly enamoured with the treatment
> his books have gotten at ACCU in the past :-)
It did not occur to me to look up previous books that he had written
<crestfallen>.
<goes and looks>
Aaahh, interesting.
Stephen Howe
Steve Heller
>> I assume this is a joke. If so, it's not very funny.
>
>No joke whatsoever. I am deadly serious. Several members of ACCU are
>connected with C++ standardisation. They are competent reviewers.
Name them.
> Getting
>recommendations like books from Nicolai Josuttis, Scott Meyers, Herb Sutter,
>Andrei Alexandrescu, Andrew Koenig is like getting a Michelin 3-star award
>for a restuarant. The public knows that it is a good place to eat.
Does the public also know that the reviewers are friends with the
authors in many cases?
>Otherwise it is like my English teachers remarks at school, "must try
>harder".
Your condescension shows more about you than about anything else.
What exactly have you accomplished that gives you such license to
demean others?
Neil Butterworth
> "Stephen Howe" <NOSPAM...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >> I assume this is a joke. If so, it's not very funny.
> >
> >No joke whatsoever. I am deadly serious. Several members of ACCU are
> >connected with C++ standardisation. They are competent reviewers.
>
> Name them.
Francis Glassboro is I believe involved with the standards process.
>
> > Getting
> >recommendations like books from Nicolai Josuttis, Scott Meyers, Herb
Sutter,
> >Andrei Alexandrescu, Andrew Koenig is like getting a Michelin 3-star
award
> >for a restuarant. The public knows that it is a good place to eat.
>
> Does the public also know that the reviewers are friends with the
> authors in many cases?
Of course they are friends! The people you have named are all I think
involved with the standards process and so will meet up for drinks
afterwards. It's not a conspiracy.
And are you suggesting that the books these guys wrote are not in any way
excellent? I own all their works (that I'm aware off) and all of them are
uniformly great.
NeilB
Stephen Howe
> >connected with C++ standardisation. They are competent reviewers.
>
> Name them.
Francis Glassborow
Sean Corfield
Kevlin Henney
I met the first two once on separate occasions. Note, I am not a member of
ACCU.
> >recommendations like books from Nicolai Josuttis, Scott Meyers, Herb
Sutter,
> >Andrei Alexandrescu, Andrew Koenig is like getting a Michelin 3-star
award
> >for a restuarant. The public knows that it is a good place to eat.
>
> Does the public also know that the reviewers are friends with the
> authors in many cases?
So? That has hardly surprising. They have all been involved in the
standardisation of C++. Most novice C++ programmers have benefitted
indirectly from their efforts over the years. They are to be applauded. I am
also pretty certain that if they wrote a bad book, ACCU would not spare
them.
> Your condescension shows more about you than about anything else.
> What exactly have you accomplished that gives you such license to
> demean others?
No condescension or demeaning meant. I trust the judgement of those who have
contributed to C++ over many years. So why don't you? Everybody here knows
that one author with surname S*****t has been roundly criticised for
foisting C++ books on the unsuspecting public where vast numbers of pages
have errors or bad practice. In fact I can find a URL connected with
standardisation where one of his books is sifted through and errors are
exposed. Should he complain or should he learn and make sure that the next
C++ book is free of errors? But he has improved, which to me is a hallmark
of humilty. ACCU takes its mission cue as making sure that publishers don't
foist poor C++ books on the next generation of newbie C++ programmers. I
think that is commendable.
Stephen Howe
Stephen Howe
> excellent? I own all their works (that I'm aware off) and all of them are
> uniformly great.
Same here. They really are good. I still have a lot to learn. Mind you, for
Josuttis, I wish for his examples, he did not use int's as the containee so
often in his demonstration STL code. Many progammers will be using their own
classes and therefore they will need to define < or == operators or use
predicates etc. For int's the built-in operators apply.
Stephen Howe
Neil Butterworth
news:3cbcc693$0$8510$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Yes, and on closer reading sometimes you wonder what he's talking about. If
you've got the book, see page 611, next to last paragraph where he says
[code slightly abridged - neilb]:
<quote>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
char c;
while( cin.get(c) ) ) {
cout.put(c);
}
}
In C, it is necessary to use an object of type int for character processing
to tell whether end of file was reached [ok so far - neilb]. In this
version, the read character is accessed simply by using the dereference
operator.
</quote>
Um, what "dereference operator" ???
NeilB
Steve Heller
>"Steve Heller" <st...@steveheller.com> wrote in message
>news:huepbuckustlngvnp...@4ax.com...
>> "Stephen Howe" <NOSPAM...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I assume this is a joke. If so, it's not very funny.
>> >
>> >No joke whatsoever. I am deadly serious. Several members of ACCU are
>> >connected with C++ standardisation. They are competent reviewers.
>>
>> Name them.
>
>Francis Glassboro is I believe involved with the standards process.
That may be, but he is not a competent reviewer. Any reviewer whose
criticism of a book is based (to even the slightest degree) on the
acknowledgements given by the author is, to put it politely,
incompetent. I can give other examples if you need them.
>> > Getting
>> >recommendations like books from Nicolai Josuttis, Scott Meyers, Herb
>Sutter,
>> >Andrei Alexandrescu, Andrew Koenig is like getting a Michelin 3-star
>award
>> >for a restuarant. The public knows that it is a good place to eat.
>>
>> Does the public also know that the reviewers are friends with the
>> authors in many cases?
>
>
>Of course they are friends! The people you have named are all I think
>involved with the standards process and so will meet up for drinks
>afterwards. It's not a conspiracy.
I didn't say it was a conspiracy.
>And are you suggesting that the books these guys wrote are not in any way
>excellent? I own all their works (that I'm aware off) and all of them are
>uniformly great.
I didn't say that. I own a number of those books too, although
certainly not all, and the ones I have are indeed excellent. However,
people who don't happen to be in their club may not be treated as well
as those who are. I certainly have not been.
Stephen Howe
If
> you've got the book, see page 611, next to last paragraph where he says
> [code slightly abridged - neilb]:
My copy is at work, I will have to check tomorrow. Funny, it is not in the
errata.
See http://www.josuttis.de/libbook/errata.html
Stephen Howe
Steve Heller
>> >No joke whatsoever. I am deadly serious. Several members of ACCU are
>> >connected with C++ standardisation. They are competent reviewers.
>>
>> Name them.
>
>Francis Glassborow
He is not a competent reviewer, as I've explained in another
message.
>Sean Corfield
I've met him, and he seems nice enough.
>Kevlin Henney
Don't know him.
>I met the first two once on separate occasions. Note, I am not a member of
>ACCU.
Good.
>> >recommendations like books from Nicolai Josuttis, Scott Meyers, Herb
>Sutter,
>> >Andrei Alexandrescu, Andrew Koenig is like getting a Michelin 3-star
>award
>> >for a restuarant. The public knows that it is a good place to eat.
>>
>> Does the public also know that the reviewers are friends with the
>> authors in many cases?
>
>So? That has hardly surprising. They have all been involved in the
>standardisation of C++. Most novice C++ programmers have benefitted
>indirectly from their efforts over the years. They are to be applauded. I am
>also pretty certain that if they wrote a bad book, ACCU would not spare
>them.
I don't believe that is correct. Others have mentioned several
occasions on which books written by a "favored few" have been praised
by ACCU despite being riddled with errors.
>> Your condescension shows more about you than about anything else.
>> What exactly have you accomplished that gives you such license to
>> demean others?
>
>No condescension or demeaning meant. I trust the judgement of those who have
>contributed to C++ over many years. So why don't you?
Because I know they are biased.
> Everybody here knows
>that one author with surname S*****t has been roundly criticised for
>foisting C++ books on the unsuspecting public where vast numbers of pages
>have errors or bad practice. In fact I can find a URL connected with
>standardisation where one of his books is sifted through and errors are
>exposed. Should he complain or should he learn and make sure that the next
>C++ book is free of errors?
The latter, of course. Which is why I've just posted a request for a
technical reviewer for my forthcoming book.
> But he has improved, which to me is a hallmark
>of humilty. ACCU takes its mission cue as making sure that publishers don't
>foist poor C++ books on the next generation of newbie C++ programmers. I
>think that is commendable.
Then let them review books fairly and objectively, not on the basis
of irrelevancies and bias.
Pete Becker
>
> That may be, but he is not a competent reviewer. Any reviewer whose
> criticism of a book is based (to even the slightest degree) on the
> acknowledgements given by the author is, to put it politely,
> incompetent.
The actual words are:
Third, I wish he would keep religion out of his books. Authors
can acknowledge whomever they want to but they should realise
that some acknowledgements will have a negative impact on some
potential readers. Steve is entitled to his opinion of L Ron Hubbard
but he must know that many others do not share it. I find it hard to
believe
that Hubbard's writings contributed anything to Whos Afraid of Java.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Stephen Howe
> occasions on which books written by a "favored few" have been praised
> by ACCU despite being riddled with errors.
Do you have examples of that? I don't like unfair treatment.
"Errors" is probably a loose term as their are various types of error.
Things like missing pages or missing characters can hardly be blamed on the
author and it is the publisher who should be held to account (for failed
technical proofreading before publishing). The content however is the
authors responsibility.
I like the online erratas for recent books. That is a neat feature.
Stephen Howe
Donovan Rebbechi
> So? That has hardly surprising. They have all been involved in the
> standardisation of C++. Most novice C++ programmers have benefitted
> indirectly from their efforts over the years. They are to be applauded. I am
> also pretty certain that if they wrote a bad book, ACCU would not spare
> them.
Not sure if this is true. For example, I think "Effective STL" was overrated.
Not that it's a bad book (actually, it's quite good), it's just that it falls
short of being brilliant, and one gets the feeling that it's a bit of a stretch
to come up with those 50 items. My feeling is that the premise is actually a
little flimsy (how to use a library)
Other books that are over-rated IMO are Lippmans books, largely because of the
authors resputation and expertise. His book on the "C++ Object Model" is quite
good, but his beginner books don't address beginners.
> that one author with surname S*****t has been roundly criticised for
> foisting C++ books on the unsuspecting public where vast numbers of pages
> have errors or bad practice. In fact I can find a URL connected with
> standardisation where one of his books is sifted through and errors are
> exposed. Should he complain or should he learn and make sure that the next
> C++ book is free of errors? But he has improved, which to me is a hallmark
> of humilty.
The funny thing is that none of his books will *ever* receive a good review on
ACCU unless it's published by AW and the forward is either written by an AT&T
employee, someone who's published with AW, or both.
> ACCU takes its mission cue as making sure that publishers don't
> foist poor C++ books on the next generation of newbie C++ programmers. I
> think that is commendable.
If that's really their mission, why even bother reviewing
"inside the C++ object model", "Design Patterns", anything by Coplien or Booch,
etc ?
--
Donovan
Steve Heller
explain this, if you can.
By the way, his statement that "I find it hard to believe that
Hubbard's writings contributed anything to Whos Afraid of Java." is a
typical example of his bias. LRH's "study technology" was quite
helpful to me in determining the sequence and manner of teaching C++
to absolute beginners.
Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
--
Donovan Rebbechi
wrote:
> involved with the standards process and so will meet up for drinks
> afterwards. It's not a conspiracy.
A conspiracy implies a conscious and orchestrated effort. IMO it's a lot less
ominous than that.
> And are you suggesting that the books these guys wrote are not in any way
> excellent?
I'd suggest that it often appears that the reputation of the author is what
is being rated, and not the quality of the book. For example, there's a short
period for which Schildt books get uniformly scathing reviews (1998-9) ,
however, a number of prior titles didn't get the dreaded "not recommended" tag.
> I own all their works (that I'm aware off) and all of them are
> uniformly great.
There are degrees of greatness. It would be nice if the reviews would reflect
these.
--
Donovan
Steve Heller
>> I don't believe that is correct. Others have mentioned several
>> occasions on which books written by a "favored few" have been praised
>> by ACCU despite being riddled with errors.
>
>Do you have examples of that? I don't like unfair treatment.
Others here have mentioned such reviews. I can try to find those
messages if you wish, but I've recently cleaned out my usenet folders
and would have to search for them.
>"Errors" is probably a loose term as their are various types of error.
>Things like missing pages or missing characters can hardly be blamed on the
>author and it is the publisher who should be held to account (for failed
>technical proofreading before publishing). The content however is the
>authors responsibility.
No, they were actual content errors.
>I like the online erratas for recent books. That is a neat feature.
I agree, and plan to implement it for my new book.
Stephen Howe
overrated.
> Not that it's a bad book (actually, it's quite good), it's just that it
falls
> short of being brilliant, and one gets the feeling that it's a bit of a
stretch
> to come up with those 50 items. My feeling is that the premise is actually
a
> little flimsy (how to use a library)
Interesting. Perhaps it should have been 40 items.
> Other books that are over-rated IMO are Lippmans books, largely because of
the
> authors resputation and expertise. His book on the "C++ Object Model" is
quite
> good, but his beginner books don't address beginners.
I have one of his beginner books (C++ Primer??) and I found it a difficult
read.
I never learnt anything from it.
> The funny thing is that none of his books will *ever* receive a good
review on
> ACCU unless it's published by AW and the forward is either written by an
AT&T
> employee, someone who's published with AW, or both.
I just checked. There are some AW books that are "not recommended" so that
is not universal.
> > ACCU takes its mission cue as making sure that publishers don't
> > foist poor C++ books on the next generation of newbie C++ programmers. I
> > think that is commendable.
>
> If that's really their mission, why even bother reviewing
> "inside the C++ object model", "Design Patterns", anything by Coplien or
Booch,
> etc ?
I guess that is because that is part of their brief. They do cover C. Their
review subjects covers "astronomy" - there is something I can't find in any
of my C or C++ books :)
Stephen Howe
Stephen Howe
> messages if you wish, but I've recently cleaned out my usenet folders
> and would have to search for them.
Hrrrmm, I will try searching then.
Stephen Howe
Stephen Howe
overrated.
> Not that it's a bad book (actually, it's quite good), it's just that it
falls
> short of being brilliant, and one gets the feeling that it's a bit of a
stretch
> to come up with those 50 items. My feeling is that the premise is actually
a
> little flimsy (how to use a library)
Yes, on balance I think you are right. I would categorise it as
"Recommended" but not "Highly Recommended".
Stephen Howe
Steve Heller
>I have one of his beginner books (C++ Primer??) and I found it a difficult
>read.
>I never learnt anything from it.
That is a fairly difficult book, even if you're not a complete
beginner. I wasn't when I read it.
Steve Heller
>No condescension or demeaning meant. I trust the judgement of those who have
>contributed to C++ over many years. So why don't you?
Here are a few examples of the "judgement" of the ACCU reviewers:
How about a "combined review" of two books about different
languages at different levels?
(http://accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w001672b)
Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
programmer"?
(http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
Or that the author is remiss in not presenting the material at a level
of abstraction that is comfortable, not for the intended audience, but
for the *reviewer*?
(http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/l/l002310.htm)
Hope that helps.
Neil Butterworth
Ooh, does this mean I could make $5.12 (or whatever) a la Don Knuth? I'll
trust you not to sneak in before me :-)
NeilB
Neil Butterworth
> The latter, of course. Which is why I've just posted a request for a
> technical reviewer for my forthcoming book.
Shouldn't your publisher do this? I once acted as a technical reviewer for a
Windows programming book by Addison Wesley UK (got the complete set of
Knuth's book as a reward) so I know that good publishers do this.
I don't think anyone here is going to do a tech review of your book for
free.
NeilB
Steve Heller
I'm not asking them to do it for free; my publisher is paying for
it. However, since time is short, my editor thought it would be more
efficient for me to find a reviewer myself.
Stephen Howe
I didn't know that it had doubled. It was $2.56
Stephen Howe
Alexander Terekhov
Steve Heller wrote:
>
> "Stephen Howe" <NOSPAM...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >No condescension or demeaning meant. I trust the judgement of those who have
> >contributed to C++ over many years. So why don't you?
>
> Here are a few examples of the "judgement" of the ACCU reviewers:
>
> How about a "combined review" of two books about different
> languages at different levels?
> (http://accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w001672b)
> Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
> significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
> programmer"?
> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
> Or that the author is remiss in not presenting the material at a level
> of abstraction that is comfortable, not for the intended audience, but
> for the *reviewer*?
> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/l/l002310.htm)
http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/0rv/Francis_Glassborow.htm
"Reviews by: Francis Glassborow
A total of 840 titles. "
^^^
<sigh>
> Hope that helps.
yep. thanks.
regards,
alexander.
Steve Heller
Out of the 840 reviews, those I mentioned account for 100% of
reviews of my books by Mr. Glassborow.
Now that allows for several possibilities:
1. It's just a random coincidence that these biased and/or irrelevant
comments are about my books, and all his other reviews are fine.
2. He has something personal against me, and all his other reviews are
fine.
3. His reviews are unreliable in general.
I know which of those I deem most likely, but others will of course
have to make their own determinations.
Uwe Schnitker
>
> Here are a few examples of the "judgement" of the ACCU reviewers:
Reviewers? Plural? All of your three examples are reviews by Francis Glassborow,
and, BTW, all of them are about books written by you.
There are hundreds of reviewers contributing to ACCU, and it should ne noted
that in several cases ACCU provides reviews of the same book by different
reviewers coming to different conclusions, e.g. "Not recommended"
vs. "Recommended".
>
> How about a "combined review" of two books about different
> languages at different levels?
> (http://accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w001672b)
Where's the problem, if the review does justice to both?
(Here I'm neither confirming nor denying it does.)
> Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
> significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
> programmer"?
> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
I have more than 10 years of (maybe not significant) experience in using
the english language, but I'm most certainly not a native speaker of english.
If you are not fluent in truly modern C++ idioms, like almost all programmers
at present (like me, e.g., since I didn't have an opportunity yet to practice
them ), you are not a "native speaker of Modern C++", which admittedly isn't
exactly the same as "not a C++ programmer".
> Or that the author is remiss in not presenting the material at a level
> of abstraction that is comfortable, not for the intended audience, but
> for the *reviewer*?
> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/l/l002310.htm)
IMHO, the reviewer concedes that you are "presenting the material at a level
of abstraction that is comfortable for the intended audience", but he complains
that they will not gain an adequate understanding of the subject, i.e. they will
learn very well, but not neccessarily learn the right thing.
I think it is very difficult to write a book, even more to write a textbook,
and yet even more to write a textbook for novices, about a topic like C++.
My impression after reading the reviews is that you did it quite well.
Please read some ACCU reviews about really bad books, where the main question
is weather the book may serve as a doorstop or not -depending on page count.
This will put the reviews of your book in proper perspective.
Also, don't forget that reviewers - like you and me - are humans, and that
book reviews are inherently subjective, even if people try hard to be not.
> Hope that helps.
Ditto.
Uwe
Stephen Howe
> significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
> programmer"?
> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
So? My collegues at work have been daily using C++ compilers for 5 years yet
I find this:
(i) Code duplication. One program we run does 3 different exports. The
difference between each one of the 3 is minimal, they represent different
types of tv rating figures. It would be natural to have some type of base
class and represent the different rating types as derived classes. But no.
(ii) Many of their classes start
class whatever
{
public:
// everything else
:
};
(iii) most of their programs are procedural in nature which to my mind means
that the jump from C has not really been made.
They would still claim that they are C++ programmers. They are changing.
I have not seen any of your books so I cannot tell if any of the reviews are
fair or not. I will have to browse round some of the bookshops in London. It
would be interesting to review the ACCU reviews for the books that I do have
that I am familiar with and see if their assessments agree with mine.
Stephen Howe
Pete Becker
>
> And exactly how is that relevant to anything in the book? Please
> explain this, if you can.
>
I think that's up to you. You're the one who thought Hubbard was
relevant to the book. Otherwise, why mention him at all?
Pete Becker
>
> Out of the 840 reviews, those I mentioned account for 100% of
> reviews of my books by Mr. Glassborow.
> Now that allows for several possibilities:
> 1. It's just a random coincidence that these biased and/or irrelevant
> comments are about my books, and all his other reviews are fine.
> 2. He has something personal against me, and all his other reviews are
> fine.
> 3. His reviews are unreliable in general.
>
There's a fourth possibility:
4. You're a lousy writer, and his reviews of your books are dead
accurate.
Alexander Terekhov
Pete Becker wrote:
>
> Steve Heller wrote:
> >
> > Out of the 840 reviews, those I mentioned account for 100% of
> > reviews of my books by Mr. Glassborow.
> > Now that allows for several possibilities:
> > 1. It's just a random coincidence that these biased and/or irrelevant
> > comments are about my books, and all his other reviews are fine.
> > 2. He has something personal against me, and all his other reviews are
> > fine.
> > 3. His reviews are unreliable in general.
> >
>
> There's a fourth possibility:
>
> 4. You're a lousy writer, and his reviews of your books are dead
> accurate.
yep... such as (I mean "dead accuracy" w.r.t. C++) these bits, for
example:
"....(who married him in 1997)....
If you also fall in love with and
marry your collaborator they may
then be reluctant to allow you to
repeat the exercise with someone
else...."
;-)
regards,
alexander.
Steve Heller
>Steve Heller wrote:
>>
>> Out of the 840 reviews, those I mentioned account for 100% of
>> reviews of my books by Mr. Glassborow.
>> Now that allows for several possibilities:
>> 1. It's just a random coincidence that these biased and/or irrelevant
>> comments are about my books, and all his other reviews are fine.
>> 2. He has something personal against me, and all his other reviews are
>> fine.
>> 3. His reviews are unreliable in general.
>>
>
>There's a fourth possibility:
>
>4. You're a lousy writer, and his reviews of your books are dead
>accurate.
No, I'm afraid that doesn't explain the irrelevant and/or inaccurate
comments made by the reviewer. It would explain relevant, accurate
negative comments, but not irrelevant and/or inaccurate comments.
Hope that helps.
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >Steve Heller wrote:
> >>
> >> Out of the 840 reviews, those I mentioned account for 100% of
> >> reviews of my books by Mr. Glassborow.
> >> Now that allows for several possibilities:
> >> 1. It's just a random coincidence that these biased and/or irrelevant
> >> comments are about my books, and all his other reviews are fine.
> >> 2. He has something personal against me, and all his other reviews are
> >> fine.
> >> 3. His reviews are unreliable in general.
> >>
> >
> >There's a fourth possibility:
> >
> >4. You're a lousy writer, and his reviews of your books are dead
> >accurate.
>
> No, I'm afraid that doesn't explain the irrelevant and/or inaccurate
> comments made by the reviewer. It would explain relevant, accurate
> negative comments, but not irrelevant and/or inaccurate comments.
>
It would explain a great deal about this thread.
Steve Heller
>Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote in message news:<upnpbu8umiu871uo1...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> Here are a few examples of the "judgement" of the ACCU reviewers:
>
>Reviewers? Plural? All of your three examples are reviews by Francis Glassborow,
>and, BTW, all of them are about books written by you.
Thank you for pointing that out. I was trying to show that ACCU
reviews are not always accurate and/or unbiased. I used examples where
I was quite familiar with books, having written them myself. And the
fact that Francis Glassborow wrote all those reviews is hardly my
fault.
>There are hundreds of reviewers contributing to ACCU, and it should ne noted
>that in several cases ACCU provides reviews of the same book by different
>reviewers coming to different conclusions, e.g. "Not recommended"
>vs. "Recommended".
Yes, that is certainly possible. Unfortunately, it is not the case
with the books in question.
>> How about a "combined review" of two books about different
>> languages at different levels?
>> (http://accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w001672b)
>
>Where's the problem, if the review does justice to both?
>(Here I'm neither confirming nor denying it does.)
It just seems a bit superficial and confusing to the (presumably
less experienced) reader.
>> Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
>> significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
>> programmer"?
>> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
>
>I have more than 10 years of (maybe not significant) experience in using
>the english language, but I'm most certainly not a native speaker of english.
That is not analogous. The analogous statement would be that you
were not an "English speaker", which would clearly be incorrect.
>If you are not fluent in truly modern C++ idioms, like almost all programmers
>at present (like me, e.g., since I didn't have an opportunity yet to practice
>them ), you are not a "native speaker of Modern C++", which admittedly isn't
>exactly the same as "not a C++ programmer".
I would say that it was quite far from the same thing.
>> Or that the author is remiss in not presenting the material at a level
>> of abstraction that is comfortable, not for the intended audience, but
>> for the *reviewer*?
>> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/l/l002310.htm)
>
>IMHO, the reviewer concedes that you are "presenting the material at a level
>of abstraction that is comfortable for the intended audience", but he complains
>that they will not gain an adequate understanding of the subject, i.e. they will
>learn very well, but not neccessarily learn the right thing.
According to him.
>I think it is very difficult to write a book, even more to write a textbook,
>and yet even more to write a textbook for novices, about a topic like C++.
Yes, that is quite difficult.
>My impression after reading the reviews is that you did it quite well.
Thank you. The question, of course, is why the book got a "not
recommended" rating in view of that fact. Even a neutral rating would
have been acceptable, as I do not claim that the book could not be
significantly improved.
>Please read some ACCU reviews about really bad books, where the main question
>is weather the book may serve as a doorstop or not -depending on page count.
>This will put the reviews of your book in proper perspective.
I have read some such reviews, and I agree that the reviews of my
books were not nearly so negative. My objection to the review of
"Learning to Program in C++", aside from irrelevant and/or incorrect
comments, is that many readers will not bother to look past the "not
recommended" rating, which lumps my book in with those truly awful
books.
>Also, don't forget that reviewers - like you and me - are humans, and that
>book reviews are inherently subjective, even if people try hard to be not.
I understand that. But it seems to me that some reviewers could try
a lot harder.
Steve Heller
>> Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
>> significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
>> programmer"?
>> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
>
>So? My collegues at work have been daily using C++ compilers for 5 years yet
>I find this:
I agree that "People using C++ compilers" != "C++ programmers".
>(i) Code duplication. One program we run does 3 different exports. The
>difference between each one of the 3 is minimal, they represent different
>types of tv rating figures. It would be natural to have some type of base
>class and represent the different rating types as derived classes. But no.
That is not C++ programming. It is C programming with a C++
compiler.
>(ii) Many of their classes start
>
>class whatever
>{
>public:
> // everything else
> :
>};
They obviously understand nothing about the advantages of
encapsulation. Again, an obvious indication that they are not really
C++ programmers.
>(iii) most of their programs are procedural in nature which to my mind means
>that the jump from C has not really been made.
I agree.
>They would still claim that they are C++ programmers. They are changing.
I'm glad if they are changing, but so far they don't seem to have
gotten very far.
>I have not seen any of your books so I cannot tell if any of the reviews are
>fair or not. I will have to browse round some of the bookshops in London.
You should be able to find my book in any good bookstore that
covers programming topics.
> It
>would be interesting to review the ACCU reviews for the books that I do have
>that I am familiar with and see if their assessments agree with mine.
I would be interested in hearing your comments after that exercise.
Steve Heller
No, it wouldn't. But what I really want to know is this: have you
ever read one of my books? If not, on what are you basing your
"possibility"?
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >Steve Heller wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Steve Heller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Out of the 840 reviews, those I mentioned account for 100% of
> >> >> reviews of my books by Mr. Glassborow.
> >> >> Now that allows for several possibilities:
> >> >> 1. It's just a random coincidence that these biased and/or irrelevant
> >> >> comments are about my books, and all his other reviews are fine.
> >> >> 2. He has something personal against me, and all his other reviews are
> >> >> fine.
> >> >> 3. His reviews are unreliable in general.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There's a fourth possibility:
> >> >
> >> >4. You're a lousy writer, and his reviews of your books are dead
> >> >accurate.
> >>
> >> No, I'm afraid that doesn't explain the irrelevant and/or inaccurate
> >> comments made by the reviewer. It would explain relevant, accurate
> >> negative comments, but not irrelevant and/or inaccurate comments.
> >>
> >
> >It would explain a great deal about this thread.
>
> No, it wouldn't. But what I really want to know is this: have you
> ever read one of my books? If not, on what are you basing your
> "possibility"?
>
Logical completeness. The three possibilities you listed do not exhaust
all reasonable possibilities.
Steve Heller
I never said they did. But your fourth possibility does not answer
the posed question, because the actual worth of my books is irrelevant
to the reason for including irrelevant and/or incorrect comments in a
review.
Pete Becker
>
> I never said they did. But your fourth possibility does not answer
> the posed question, because the actual worth of my books is irrelevant
> to the reason for including irrelevant and/or incorrect comments in a
> review.
>
It would explain why you keep flatly asserting that reviews contain
irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, when other people's judgment may
differ from yours.
Alexander Terekhov
Steve Heller wrote:
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >Steve Heller wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Steve Heller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Out of the 840 reviews, those I mentioned account for 100% of
> >> >> reviews of my books by Mr. Glassborow.
> >> >> Now that allows for several possibilities:
> >> >> 1. It's just a random coincidence that these biased and/or irrelevant
> >> >> comments are about my books, and all his other reviews are fine.
> >> >> 2. He has something personal against me, and all his other reviews are
> >> >> fine.
> >> >> 3. His reviews are unreliable in general.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There's a fourth possibility:
> >> >
> >> >4. You're a lousy writer, and his reviews of your books are dead
> >> >accurate.
> >>
> >> No, I'm afraid that doesn't explain the irrelevant and/or inaccurate
> >> comments made by the reviewer. It would explain relevant, accurate
> >> negative comments, but not irrelevant and/or inaccurate comments.
> >>
> >
> >It would explain a great deal about this thread.
>
> No, it wouldn't. But what I really want to know is this: have you
> ever read one of my books? If not, on what are you basing your
> "possibility"?
On this:
ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.answers/usenet/culture-faq
"On Flames:
Steve Siegfried (s...@skypoint.com) wrote:
> You see, that's the really neat part about the net. We flame
> people. We flame people for making sense. We flame people for
> being silly. We even flame people trying to make a living. We
> flame people for asking questions. We flame them for posting/
> emailing thoughtful responses to our otherwise lack-luster queries.
> We flame 'em for making mundane replies to Pulitzer-class
> postings. We especially like to flame people who even hint at
> newbieness.
>
> A large part of the net and the email traffic it carries is the
> exclusive domain of pocket-protected, high-water-trousered,
> over-hyphenated, socially-retarded single white males. In short,
> the net's a social club for technonerds ("No Girls Allowed") not
> unlike, say, the Masons. As further evidence, IMHO, we have a
> secret language. We even have a decoder ring: rot-13. Oh yeah,
> and signature files whose size is probably inversely proportional
> to either our IQ or some other personal measurement."
regards,
alexander.
Steve Heller
>Steve Heller wrote:
>>
>> I never said they did. But your fourth possibility does not answer
>> the posed question, because the actual worth of my books is irrelevant
>> to the reason for including irrelevant and/or incorrect comments in a
>> review.
>>
>
>It would explain why you keep flatly asserting that reviews contain
>irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, when other people's judgment may
>differ from yours.
It would not explain why those reviews actually do contain
specifically described irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, which any
objective reader can determine for himself. I guess that lets you out,
though.
Donovan Rebbechi
> Steve Heller wrote:
>>
>> Out of the 840 reviews, those I mentioned account for 100% of
>> reviews of my books by Mr. Glassborow.
>> Now that allows for several possibilities:
>> 1. It's just a random coincidence that these biased and/or irrelevant
>> comments are about my books, and all his other reviews are fine.
>> 2. He has something personal against me, and all his other reviews are
>> fine.
>> 3. His reviews are unreliable in general.
>>
>
> There's a fourth possibility:
>
> 4. You're a lousy writer, and his reviews of your books are dead
> accurate.
The FG ACCU review doesn't address the quality of his writing. The review
proceedure here seems to consist of:
(a) a brief perusal of the index
(b) a review of the blurb and back cover
(c) a superficial scan for obvious programming errors
(d) an appraisal of the authors and publishers reputation
The review of Hellers book was a pretty shoddy effort and devoted a
disproportionate amount of time to irrelevant details, and (ill-founded)
detective work about the "authenticity" of Hellers "novice" test-case.
Not that it's an ideal book. Heller sent me and someone else a copy, and we
posted reviews, and there are some legitimate gripes one can make about the
book, but FG seems more interested in irrelevant details.
A more recent book review has appeared on ACCU, and it's a better thought out
review, but it's a bit much to criticise the code for not being exception safe,
considering that the acclaimed "Accelerated C++" and the "Effective C++" books
not only make errors here, they advise checking for self-assignment.
--
Donovan
Donovan Rebbechi
> schn...@sigma-c.com (Uwe Schnitker) wrote:
>
>>Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote in message news:<upnpbu8umiu871uo1...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>
>>> Here are a few examples of the "judgement" of the ACCU reviewers:
>>
>>Reviewers? Plural? All of your three examples are reviews by Francis Glassborow,
>>and, BTW, all of them are about books written by you.
>
> Thank you for pointing that out. I was trying to show that ACCU
> reviews are not always accurate and/or unbiased. I used examples where
> I was quite familiar with books, having written them myself. And the
> fact that Francis Glassborow wrote all those reviews is hardly my
> fault.
Interestingly enough, another review of Learning C++ was posted to ACCU. The
other review is better thought out than FGs, though I think it's kind of silly
to make such a big deal out of exception safety, given that nearly every book
(even the good ones) mess this up.
--
Donovan
osmium
> > people. We flame people for making sense. We flame people for
> > being silly. We even flame people trying to make a living. We
> > flame people for asking questions. We flame them for posting/
> > emailing thoughtful responses to our otherwise lack-luster queries.
> > We flame 'em for making mundane replies to Pulitzer-class
> > postings. We especially like to flame people who even hint at
> > newbieness.
> >
> > A large part of the net and the email traffic it carries is the
> > exclusive domain of pocket-protected, high-water-trousered,
> > over-hyphenated, socially-retarded single white males. In short,
> > the net's a social club for technonerds ("No Girls Allowed") not
> > unlike, say, the Masons. As further evidence, IMHO, we have a
> > secret language. We even have a decoder ring: rot-13. Oh yeah,
> > and signature files whose size is probably inversely proportional
> > to either our IQ or some other personal measurement."
A pretty good summary IMO. But I don't think the hyphenated names thing has
yet reached the 12-year old age group. Thankfully, I know nothing of the
"other personal measurement" statistics.
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >Steve Heller wrote:
> >>
> >> I never said they did. But your fourth possibility does not answer
> >> the posed question, because the actual worth of my books is irrelevant
> >> to the reason for including irrelevant and/or incorrect comments in a
> >> review.
> >>
> >
> >It would explain why you keep flatly asserting that reviews contain
> >irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, when other people's judgment may
> >differ from yours.
>
> It would not explain why those reviews actually do contain
> specifically described irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, which any
> objective reader can determine for himself. I guess that lets you out,
> though.
>
You continue to state your personal opinions as if they were facts, and
then draw erroneous conclusions from those "facts". Claiming that your
opinions are obvious to any objective reader does not make it so.
But to the real point: your objections to the reviews, even if factually
accurate, do not go to the merits of the reviews, but to the style of
the writing. If that's the strongest defense you can make for your books
then you have failed utterly.
Steve Heller
Yes, I agree that review was of higher quality than FG's. But, given
the following quote:
>To summarize, this book should be considered only by absolutely naive newcomers to programming and computers.
>The book is not a reference or a text for serious programmers. But if a potential reader knows next to nothing about
>computers, wants to spend many months reading a low level approach to C++, under-stands that the C++ standard
>library will need to be (re)learned, and realizes that some of the coding styles are outdated, then reading the book would
>be worthwhile.
and the fact that the target audience is precisely "absolutely naive
newcomers to programming and computers", I have trouble understanding
how this review, too, could be rated "Not recommended".
Steve Heller
>Steve Heller wrote:
>>
>> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Heller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I never said they did. But your fourth possibility does not answer
>> >> the posed question, because the actual worth of my books is irrelevant
>> >> to the reason for including irrelevant and/or incorrect comments in a
>> >> review.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It would explain why you keep flatly asserting that reviews contain
>> >irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, when other people's judgment may
>> >differ from yours.
>>
>> It would not explain why those reviews actually do contain
>> specifically described irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, which any
>> objective reader can determine for himself. I guess that lets you out,
>> though.
>>
>
>You continue to state your personal opinions as if they were facts, and
>then draw erroneous conclusions from those "facts". Claiming that your
>opinions are obvious to any objective reader does not make it so.
I notice that you cannot refute my points, so you merely claim that
they are "opinion".
>But to the real point: your objections to the reviews, even if factually
>accurate, do not go to the merits of the reviews, but to the style of
>the writing. If that's the strongest defense you can make for your books
>then you have failed utterly.
You are incorrect again. My objections to the reviews in question
are not in any way to their style, but precisely to their merits (or
lack thereof, to be more precise). The purpose of a review is to
assess the quality and suitability of a book for its intended
audience, not to make irrelevant and/or incorrect comments about the
book. Therefore, I have achieved my objective if I have demonstrated
that these reviews do not meet the criteria by which reviews should be
judged.
Q.E.D.
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >Steve Heller wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Steve Heller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I never said they did. But your fourth possibility does not answer
> >> >> the posed question, because the actual worth of my books is irrelevant
> >> >> to the reason for including irrelevant and/or incorrect comments in a
> >> >> review.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >It would explain why you keep flatly asserting that reviews contain
> >> >irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, when other people's judgment may
> >> >differ from yours.
> >>
> >> It would not explain why those reviews actually do contain
> >> specifically described irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, which any
> >> objective reader can determine for himself. I guess that lets you out,
> >> though.
> >>
> >
> >You continue to state your personal opinions as if they were facts, and
> >then draw erroneous conclusions from those "facts". Claiming that your
> >opinions are obvious to any objective reader does not make it so.
>
> I notice that you cannot refute my points, so you merely claim that
> they are "opinion".
You refused earlier to explain why it is that L. Ron Hubbard is relevant
enough to to your book to be mentioned in the acknowledgements but not
relevant enough to be mentioned in a review. Since you give no rational
reason, it seems natural to conclude that your claim that this is
irrelevant is an opinion.
>
> >But to the real point: your objections to the reviews, even if factually
> >accurate, do not go to the merits of the reviews, but to the style of
> >the writing. If that's the strongest defense you can make for your books
> >then you have failed utterly.
>
> You are incorrect again. My objections to the reviews in question
> are not in any way to their style, but precisely to their merits (or
> lack thereof, to be more precise). The purpose of a review is to
> assess the quality and suitability of a book for its intended
> audience, not to make irrelevant and/or incorrect comments about the
> book. Therefore, I have achieved my objective if I have demonstrated
> that these reviews do not meet the criteria by which reviews should be
> judged.
>
From false premises any conclusion is possible.
Stephen Howe
> assess the quality and suitability of a book for its intended
> audience, not to make irrelevant and/or incorrect comments about the
> book.
Which one of your books/reviews are you referring to?
Thanks
Stephen Howe
Donovan Rebbechi
> enough to to your book to be mentioned in the acknowledgements but not
> relevant enough to be mentioned in a review. Since you give no rational
> reason, it seems natural to conclude that your claim that this is
> irrelevant is an opinion.
People who are shopping for programming books do not make purchasing decisions
on the basis of a critical appraisal of the writing style or content of the
acknowledgements. Here's a though experiment-- pick your 10 favourite
programming books, and order them by the quality of the "acknowledgements"
section-- without looking at those books. I submit that you didn't rate those
books as your favourites on the basis of the acknowledgements section, and
moreover, the quality and/or content of this section would not substantially
change your opinion of these books.
This is an exemplar of FGs fascination with relatively unimportant details.
--
Donovan
Pete Becker
Most books don't mention such controversial figures as L. Ron Hubbard in
their acknowledgments.
Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
author?
Stephen Howe
> Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
> Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
> author?
Not for me it wouldn't. The sanity of the author is no block to writing
"good C++ books".
I will judge the book solely on its claims as to what it is. If it claims to
be comprehensive reference manual on ISO C++ language and library then I
will turn to the index and look up things like "unintialized_fill" or "try
function blocks". If they are absent then it will get slated by now -
obviously not "comprehensive" or even a "reference". An exhaustive study of
its contents will determine if the authors/publishers claims for its target
audience are well met (or not).
Stephen Howe
Pete Becker
>
> > Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
> > Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
> > Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
> > author?
>
> Not for me it wouldn't. The sanity of the author is no block to writing
> "good C++ books".
>
I didn't ask if it was a block. I asked if it would affect your
assessment. Part of evaluating a book is assessing the credentials of
its author, and insanity is certainly relevant to that assessment.
osmium
> I didn't ask if it was a block. I asked if it would affect your
> assessment. Part of evaluating a book is assessing the credentials of
> its author, and insanity is certainly relevant to that assessment.
Odd, that you should mention that. There is(was?) a trial on TV of a guy
who shot and killed several co-workers. He is claiming insanity as a
defense. I watched a few minutes of him being questioned and he has one of
the best/fastest minds I have ever seen. The commentators called him
arrogant and condescending towards the prosecutor. I just saw him as using
impeccable logic.
Unfortunately the guy seems to have had a Windows OS. They seized his
computer and found old queries on the hard drive searching the Internet for
how to fake insanity. This was thought to be a Bad Thing for his case.
Donovan Rebbechi
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
> Most books don't mention such controversial figures as L. Ron Hubbard in
> their acknowledgments.
>
> Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
> Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
> Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
> author?
Absolutely no effect. I don't base my viewpoints on weak ad-hominem arguments.
--
Donovan
Pete Becker
I find it hard to believe that people are seriously claiming that the
contents of the acknowledgment of a book cannot ever be relevant to
evaluating the quality of the book.
Alexander Terekhov
Pete Becker wrote:
[...]
> Most books don't mention such controversial figures as L. Ron Hubbard in
Heck! Who's this guy?! Pardon me my ignorance, folks.
> their acknowledgments.
>
> Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
> Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
^^^^^
Is he really that BAD or, well, "PERFECT"-to-some-extent? ;-)
regards,
alexander.
Donovan Rebbechi
> Stephen Howe wrote:
>>
>> > Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
>> > Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
>> > Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
>> > author?
>>
>> Not for me it wouldn't. The sanity of the author is no block to writing
>> "good C++ books".
>>
>
> I didn't ask if it was a block. I asked if it would affect your
> assessment. Part of evaluating a book is assessing the credentials of
> its author,
No, it is not (a fact lost on some ACCU reviewers)
Evaluating a book entails evaluating the content of the book. Discrediting the
book on the grounds of the source is a form of ad-hominem.
> and insanity is certainly relevant to that assessment.
At least in terms of the definition of insanity you are using, I wouldn't
say that at all.
--
Donovan
Pete Becker
>
> In article <3CBDA83A...@acm.org>, Pete Becker wrote:
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
>
> > Most books don't mention such controversial figures as L. Ron Hubbard in
> > their acknowledgments.
> >
> > Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
> > Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
> > Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
> > author?
>
> Absolutely no effect.
>
Are you seriously claiming that the contents of the acknowledgments of a
book cannot possibly be relevant to assessing its quality?
> I don't base my viewpoints on weak ad-hominem arguments.
Perhaps you read something into my example that isn't there. Let me try
another: pretend that the acknowledments in a C++ book said "Although I
know very little about C++, my eight-year old daughter told me all that
I need to know." Would that have no affect on your assessment of the
book and of its author?
--
Pete Becker
No, it's unrelated. I thought that would be a simpler example, but
apparently it wasn't.
Pete Becker
>
> In article <3CBDAE1D...@acm.org>, Pete Becker wrote:
> > Stephen Howe wrote:
> >>
> >> > Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
> >> > Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
> >> > Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
> >> > author?
> >>
> >> Not for me it wouldn't. The sanity of the author is no block to writing
> >> "good C++ books".
> >>
> >
> > I didn't ask if it was a block. I asked if it would affect your
> > assessment. Part of evaluating a book is assessing the credentials of
> > its author,
>
> No, it is not (a fact lost on some ACCU reviewers)
Huh? The competence of a writer isn't relevant to assessing a book?
>
> Evaluating a book entails evaluating the content of the book. Discrediting the
> book on the grounds of the source is a form of ad-hominem.
>
> > and insanity is certainly relevant to that assessment.
>
> At least in terms of the definition of insanity you are using, I wouldn't
> say that at all.
Sigh. That wasn't my term. Stick to the example, please.
Default User
> I agree that "People using C++ compilers" != "C++ programmers".
Of course not! That would be comparing dissimilar pointers to char . . .
.
Rats, for a minute there I thought we actually had some topical content,
but I see that I was mistaken. My bad.
Brian Rodenborn
osmium
> I find it hard to believe that people are seriously claiming that the
> contents of the acknowledgment of a book cannot ever be relevant to
> evaluating the quality of the book.
Certainly they could be relevant. When a review only has 250 words or so
(but I have no background in estimating these things) it seems there are
more important things to discuss. FWIW I think FW is a *lousy* reviewer.
But Steve keeps getting back to the notion of biased, prejudiced, it is not
AW and so on. I disagree with this, They are simply lousy reviews. And FW
is, by far, the dominant reviewer for the whole crop of ACCU reviews. I
cringe every time I see a link to the ACCU reviews posted. And remain
silent as long as possible I suspect anyone who has reviewed 814 books (or
whatever) on a single topic is burned out and should be replaced for that
reason if for no other.
Daniel T.
>Most books don't mention such controversial figures as L. Ron Hubbard in
>their acknowledgments.
>
>Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
>Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
>Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
>author?
Hope no one minds if I jump in on this one...
Pete, I don't look at the credits when deciding if a C++ book has merit.
I'm too busy trying to read the content...
I seem to recal Mr. Glassborow refusing to help a C++ newbie on this
newsgroup (or c.l.c.m) because the person had a quote from the Bible as
his sig. (I say this with much trepidation because it might have been
someone else, I can't track it down on google.)
That aside, I would find it rather odd that any technical reviewer would
find the credits at all relivant when determining if the content of a
book was acceptable. But overall I would ignore his off-topic comment
and concentrate on the rest of the review...
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >Most books don't mention such controversial figures as L. Ron Hubbard in
> >their acknowledgments.
> >
> >Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
> >Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
> >Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
> >author?
>
> Hope no one minds if I jump in on this one...
>
> Pete, I don't look at the credits when deciding if a C++ book has merit.
> I'm too busy trying to read the content...
That's not the question. The question is, do you believe that nobody
could possibly think that the contents of the acknowledgments could be
relevant?
Pete Becker
>
> I seem to recal Mr. Glassborow refusing to help a C++ newbie on this
> newsgroup (or c.l.c.m) because the person had a quote from the Bible as
> his sig. (I say this with much trepidation because it might have been
> someone else, I can't track it down on google.)
>
So let me be sure I've got this right: Glassboro's views on religion are
fair game in assessing his skill as a writer, but Heller's aren't?
Stephen Howe
> contents of the acknowledgment of a book cannot ever be relevant to
> evaluating the quality of the book.
Why so hard to believe? I am cynical. I take for granted that
acknowledgments are purely there, ordered by the publisher, to sell more
copies of the book, *WHATEVER* is said, that is all.
It is no different from newspapers who constantly claim the "right of public
to know" when publicising something sensational. Nonsense, it is purely to
sell more copies of the newspaper, that is all. It it did the opposite, they
would not print it.
And it is no different from actors/actresses on the celebrity interview
circuit. When they say, "it is a great film", there is no sincerity. It is
purely to put more bums on seats in the cinema, make more money so that they
will have a job come the next film to be made.
It is all a question of money. There is no other motive.
Stephen Howe
Pete Becker
>
> > I find it hard to believe that people are seriously claiming that the
> > contents of the acknowledgment of a book cannot ever be relevant to
> > evaluating the quality of the book.
>
> Why so hard to believe? I am cynical. I take for granted that
> acknowledgments are purely there, ordered by the publisher, to sell more
> copies of the book, *WHATEVER* is said, that is all.
And you assume that everyone else is just like you.
Stephen Howe
It certainly is. But the front title page and back pages and first few pages
before the contents can be ripped off and thrown in a furnace, they are of
no relevance the vastly more substantial chunk of pages inbetween which is
what the author _should_ be judged on.
Stephen Howe
Pete Becker
It's amazing that you know that no book ever published or to be
published has anything useful in those pages.
Daniel T.
Relevant in what sense? When I read the acknowledgments in Meyers'
"Effective STL" I bought and read Josuttis' "The C++ Standard Library".
(If I hadn't done that, I wouldn't have known what a rip-off "Effective
STL" was...)
So the acknowledgments were relevant in the sense that I learned where
the author got his information from, but it didn't tell me anything
about the veracity of that information.
In the case of thanking the Pope or the author's wife, (or in this case
L Ron Hubbard) I would assume it is a personal detail and wouldn't
expect it to have any bearing on the book's content.
Some people are religious in their atheism, they get very upset with
anyone mentions any theism in even the most personal contexts. And yes,
I consider the acknowledgments section of a book a personal context...
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel T." wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Most books don't mention such controversial figures as L. Ron Hubbard in
> >> >their acknowledgments.
> >> >
> >> >Here's another thought experiment -- pretend that a book said "I thank
> >> >Satan for helping me to understand the role of C++ in today's world."
> >> >Would that have no effect on your assessment of the book and of its
> >> >author?
> >>
> >> Hope no one minds if I jump in on this one...
> >>
> >> Pete, I don't look at the credits when deciding if a C++ book has merit.
> >> I'm too busy trying to read the content...
> >
> >That's not the question. The question is, do you believe that nobody
> >could possibly think that the contents of the acknowledgments could be
> >relevant?
>
> Relevant in what sense? When I read the acknowledgments in Meyers'
> "Effective STL" I bought and read Josuttis' "The C++ Standard Library".
> (If I hadn't done that, I wouldn't have known what a rip-off "Effective
> STL" was...)
>
> So the acknowledgments were relevant in the sense that I learned where
> the author got his information from, but it didn't tell me anything
> about the veracity of that information.
Really? Knowing where information comes from doesn't tell you anything
about its accuracy?
Daniel T.
>"Daniel T." wrote:
>>
>> I seem to recal Mr. Glassborow refusing to help a C++ newbie on this
>> newsgroup (or c.l.c.m) because the person had a quote from the Bible as
>> his sig. (I say this with much trepidation because it might have been
>> someone else, I can't track it down on google.)
>>
>
>So let me be sure I've got this right: Glassboro's views on religion are
>fair game in assessing his skill as a writer, but Heller's aren't?
Not at all. Mr. Glassborow's refusal to help someone in need because of
their religious views is relevant. It shows that he is unable to be
objective in some contexts.
But let's assume that I'm wrong about the above. The fact that Mr
Glassborow felt the need to question the author's list of people he
wished to acknowledge makes the entire review suspect.
How would you feel if you wished to publicly thank someone for helping
you complete a task and another person said that you were daft in doing
so?
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel T." wrote:
> >>
> >> I seem to recal Mr. Glassborow refusing to help a C++ newbie on this
> >> newsgroup (or c.l.c.m) because the person had a quote from the Bible as
> >> his sig. (I say this with much trepidation because it might have been
> >> someone else, I can't track it down on google.)
> >>
> >
> >So let me be sure I've got this right: Glassboro's views on religion are
> >fair game in assessing his skill as a writer, but Heller's aren't?
>
> Not at all. Mr. Glassborow's refusal to help someone in need because of
> their religious views is relevant. It shows that he is unable to be
> objective in some contexts.
I see. You think that possibly offhand comments in newsgroup discussions
are a good indicator of someone's competence, but deliberate comments in
a book are not.
>
> But let's assume that I'm wrong about the above. The fact that Mr
> Glassborow felt the need to question the author's list of people he
> wished to acknowledge makes the entire review suspect.
Well, sure, if you assume that that is inappropriate then you inevitably
conclude that it is inappropriate.
>
> How would you feel if you wished to publicly thank someone for helping
> you complete a task and another person said that you were daft in doing
> so?
The review in question didn't use the word "daft." Look it up before you
misquote it.
Daniel T.
>Really? Knowing where information comes from doesn't tell you anything
>about its accuracy?
It can sure, but I wouldn't turn to the acknowledgments section of the
book for that information...
When an author makes a personal acknowledgement (like one to a religious
figure, family member or dog) I don't expect it to have *any* bearing on
the subject of the book, even if the book is wholly about said religious
figure, family member or dog!
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >Really? Knowing where information comes from doesn't tell you anything
> >about its accuracy?
>
> It can sure, but I wouldn't turn to the acknowledgments section of the
> book for that information...
But that's exactly what you said you did:
So the acknowledgments were relevant in
the sense that I learned where the author
got his information from, but it didn't
tell me anything about the veracity of that information.
--
Steve Heller
>Steve Heller wrote:
>>
>> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Heller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Steve Heller wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I never said they did. But your fourth possibility does not answer
>> >> >> the posed question, because the actual worth of my books is irrelevant
>> >> >> to the reason for including irrelevant and/or incorrect comments in a
>> >> >> review.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >It would explain why you keep flatly asserting that reviews contain
>> >> >irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, when other people's judgment may
>> >> >differ from yours.
>> >>
>> >> It would not explain why those reviews actually do contain
>> >> specifically described irrelevant and/or incorrect comments, which any
>> >> objective reader can determine for himself. I guess that lets you out,
>> >> though.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You continue to state your personal opinions as if they were facts, and
>> >then draw erroneous conclusions from those "facts". Claiming that your
>> >opinions are obvious to any objective reader does not make it so.
>>
>> I notice that you cannot refute my points, so you merely claim that
>> they are "opinion".
>
>You refused earlier to explain why it is that L. Ron Hubbard is relevant
>enough to to your book to be mentioned in the acknowledgements but not
>relevant enough to be mentioned in a review. Since you give no rational
>reason, it seems natural to conclude that your claim that this is
>irrelevant is an opinion.
I have explained that already. Nice try, though.
>>
>> >But to the real point: your objections to the reviews, even if factually
>> >accurate, do not go to the merits of the reviews, but to the style of
>> >the writing. If that's the strongest defense you can make for your books
>> >then you have failed utterly.
>>
>> You are incorrect again. My objections to the reviews in question
>> are not in any way to their style, but precisely to their merits (or
>> lack thereof, to be more precise). The purpose of a review is to
>> assess the quality and suitability of a book for its intended
>> audience, not to make irrelevant and/or incorrect comments about the
>> book. Therefore, I have achieved my objective if I have demonstrated
>> that these reviews do not meet the criteria by which reviews should be
>> judged.
>>
>
>From false premises any conclusion is possible.
From illogic any conclusion is possible.
--
Steve Heller, WA0CPP
http://www.steveheller.com
Author of "Learning to Program in C++", Who's Afraid of C++?", "Who's Afraid of More C++?",
"Optimizing C++", and other books
Free online versions of "Who's Afraid of C++?" and "Optimizing C++" are now available
at http://www.steveheller.com/whos and http://www.steveheller.com/opt
Steve Heller
>> The purpose of a review is to
>> assess the quality and suitability of a book for its intended
>> audience, not to make irrelevant and/or incorrect comments about the
>> book.
>
>Which one of your books/reviews are you referring to?
>Thanks
>
>Stephen Howe
All of the ACCU reviews of my books contain one or both of those
types of comments... even though the reviews are not uniformly
negative in their evaluations of said books.
If someone has relevant, factual, negative comments, I might not
like them, but I would not object to them, as they would be relevant
and factual. If they are irrelevant and/or incorrect, I do object,
even if the review in question is, on the whole, positive. Of course,
if the review is also very negative in its conclusion (i.e., "Not
recommended"), I object more strongly.
Here are some specific examples of what is wrong with the ACCU
reviews, with URLs:
How about a "combined review" of two books about different
languages at different levels? (Irrelevant comments about personal
matters)
(http://accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w001672b)
Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
programmer"? (Incorrect comments)
(http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
Or that the author is remiss in not presenting the material at a level
of abstraction that is comfortable, not for the intended audience, but
for the *reviewer*? (Irrelevant AND incorrect comments)
(http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/l/l002310.htm)
Tom Plunket
> Steve Heller wrote:
>
> > That may be, but he is not a competent reviewer. Any reviewer
> > whose criticism of a book is based (to even the slightest degree)
> > on the acknowledgements given by the author is, to put it
> > politely, incompetent.
>
> The actual words are:
>
> Third, I wish he would keep religion out of his books.
> Authors can acknowledge whomever they want to but they
> should realise that some acknowledgements will have a
> negative impact on some potential readers. Steve is
> entitled to his opinion of L Ron Hubbard but he must know
> that many others do not share it. I find it hard to
> believe that Hubbard's writings contributed anything to
> Whos Afraid of Java.
I don't agree then with Steve's assessment that FG is an
"incompetent reviewer." To me, stating that one wishes their
books to be religion free is a preference more than anything, and
I would hate to think that FG's review was tainted by this
acknowledgement, however such a statement in the review is nice
to see; I can better judge a reviewer's reviews if I know how
their viewpoint compares to mine. (That is to say that there
might be some reviewers who would pan a book but based on what
they said I'd think that the book would be next on my to-buy
list.)
I also don't see any place for religion in technical books, but
that's just me; if an author finds "otherworldly forces" to be a
great inspiration for their work, so be it. I just hope that
they can keep the evangelism out of the way of the intended
content.
-tom!
Alwyn
Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>
> How about a "combined review" of two books about different
> languages at different levels? (Irrelevant comments about personal
> matters)
> (http://accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w001672b)
That whole paragraph, starting with 'reservations for the future' is
unfortunate, in my view. However, it does not detract too much from an
altogether positive, albeit somewhat superficial, review.
> Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
> significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
> programmer"? (Incorrect comments)
> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
Well, in this case, Glassborow does attempt to justify his point of
view. You may say that he is opinionated, but it would be difficult to
show that he is 'factually incorrect'.
> Or that the author is remiss in not presenting the material at a level
> of abstraction that is comfortable, not for the intended audience, but
> for the *reviewer*? (Irrelevant AND incorrect comments)
> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/l/l002310.htm)
Glassborow's main points are that the index is poor and that the
treatment of C++ is out-of-date for the time when the book was
published. He concludes: 'It is past time for the author to let go of
this infant and seek out a new start based on the best of what C++ is
today.' Wouldn't you say that that was fair comment?
Alwyn
Steve Heller
>In article <s9qrbu0ljc4aguck4...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
>>
>> How about a "combined review" of two books about different
>> languages at different levels? (Irrelevant comments about personal
>> matters)
>> (http://accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w001672b)
>
>That whole paragraph, starting with 'reservations for the future' is
>unfortunate, in my view. However, it does not detract too much from an
>altogether positive, albeit somewhat superficial, review.
Why did he write it at all? What relevance does it have to the
content of the book(s)? None that I can see. It is an indication only
of his personal, irrelevant, opinions.
>> Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
>> significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
>> programmer"? (Incorrect comments)
>> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
>
>Well, in this case, Glassborow does attempt to justify his point of
>view. You may say that he is opinionated, but it would be difficult to
>show that he is 'factually incorrect'.
No, it wouldn't be difficult at all, given any reasonable definition
of "C++ programmer". On the other hand, if Glassborow can make up
whatever definition of "C++ programmer" he likes, then surely I am
just as justified in defining "competent reviewer" to exclude him.
>> Or that the author is remiss in not presenting the material at a level
>> of abstraction that is comfortable, not for the intended audience, but
>> for the *reviewer*? (Irrelevant AND incorrect comments)
>> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/l/l002310.htm)
>
>Glassborow's main points are that the index is poor and that the
>treatment of C++ is out-of-date for the time when the book was
>published. He concludes: 'It is past time for the author to let go of
>this infant and seek out a new start based on the best of what C++ is
>today.' Wouldn't you say that that was fair comment?
The question to be answered by a review is the quality of the
material and whether the material is suitable for its intended
audience. I'm the first to admit that the existing book is imperfect,
and that it would be improved by updating it and fixing the index; in
fact, I'm working on a new edition right now that will fix those
problems.
However, I will still maintain that I know of no other published
book that is more suitable for absolute beginners to C++ than the
existing edition, and no one has been able to point out an exception.
Therefore, unless EVERY book intended for absolute beginners gets a
"Not Recommended", mine shouldn't get that rating either.
Donovan Rebbechi
> "Daniel T." wrote:
>>
>> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >"Daniel T." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I seem to recal Mr. Glassborow refusing to help a C++ newbie on this
>> >> newsgroup (or c.l.c.m) because the person had a quote from the Bible as
>> >> his sig. (I say this with much trepidation because it might have been
>> >> someone else, I can't track it down on google.)
>> >>
>> >
>> >So let me be sure I've got this right: Glassboro's views on religion are
>> >fair game in assessing his skill as a writer, but Heller's aren't?
>>
>> Not at all. Mr. Glassborow's refusal to help someone in need because of
>> their religious views is relevant. It shows that he is unable to be
>> objective in some contexts.
>
> I see. You think that possibly offhand comments in newsgroup discussions
> are a good indicator of someone's competence,
It doesn't follow that he thinks this at all. He wasn't extrapolating FGs lack
of objectivity to a general incompetence, he extrapolated a lack of objectivity
in one context to a lack of objectivity in another ...
> but deliberate comments in a book are not.
which is *not* the same as extrapolating a "lack of competence" in spiritual
matters (whatever that means) to a lack of competence in authoring technical
books. The existence of such a causal relationship is conjectural at best.
>> But let's assume that I'm wrong about the above. The fact that Mr
>> Glassborow felt the need to question the author's list of people he
>> wished to acknowledge makes the entire review suspect.
>
> Well, sure, if you assume that that is inappropriate then you inevitably
> conclude that it is inappropriate.
It's inappropriate in that it's a form of ad-hominem. He's more interested in
judging the authors religion than the content of the book. The purpose of a
book review is not to appraise the religion of the author.
--
Donovan
Donovan Rebbechi
> Really? Knowing where information comes from doesn't tell you anything
> about its accuracy?
Perhaps so, *in the absence of other information*.
*However*, the purpose of a book review is to assess the content of the book,
the other information (namely the content of the book) is available, and the
point of the review is to appraise that content.
--
Donovan
Donovan Rebbechi
> published has anything useful in those pages.
He doesn't know that. However, it just happens that in the vast majority of
cases, those pages do not form the most enriching part of the book.
How many books have you read where you can honestly say that the
acknowledgements section was the most enriching part, and how many of those
books were worth reading ?
--
Donovan
Alwyn
Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
> Alwyn <al...@alwyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <s9qrbu0ljc4aguck4...@4ax.com>,
> > Steve Heller <st...@steveheller.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> How about a "combined review" of two books about different
> >> languages at different levels? (Irrelevant comments about personal
> >> matters)
> >> (http://accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0ti_w&file=w001672b)
> >
> >That whole paragraph, starting with 'reservations for the future' is
> >unfortunate, in my view. However, it does not detract too much from an
> >altogether positive, albeit somewhat superficial, review.
>
> Why did he write it at all? What relevance does it have to the
> content of the book(s)? None that I can see. It is an indication only
> of his personal, irrelevant, opinions.
I'm sure most readers will dismiss them in that spirit. So why worry?
> >> Or another one that claims that a C++ programmer with 10 years of
> >> significant experience in the language is somehow "not a C++
> >> programmer"? (Incorrect comments)
> >> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/o/o001796.htm)
> >
> >Well, in this case, Glassborow does attempt to justify his point of
> >view. You may say that he is opinionated, but it would be difficult to
> >show that he is 'factually incorrect'.
>
> No, it wouldn't be difficult at all, given any reasonable definition
> of "C++ programmer". On the other hand, if Glassborow can make up
> whatever definition of "C++ programmer" he likes, then surely I am
> just as justified in defining "competent reviewer" to exclude him.
What Glassborow is really saying is that you're a C programmer at heart.
Since I haven't read the book, I can hardly comment, but this is the
ground on which you must address the criticism.
> >> Or that the author is remiss in not presenting the material at a level
> >> of abstraction that is comfortable, not for the intended audience, but
> >> for the *reviewer*? (Irrelevant AND incorrect comments)
> >> (http://accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/l/l002310.htm)
> >
> >Glassborow's main points are that the index is poor and that the
> >treatment of C++ is out-of-date for the time when the book was
> >published. He concludes: 'It is past time for the author to let go of
> >this infant and seek out a new start based on the best of what C++ is
> >today.' Wouldn't you say that that was fair comment?
>
> The question to be answered by a review is the quality of the
> material and whether the material is suitable for its intended
> audience. I'm the first to admit that the existing book is imperfect,
> and that it would be improved by updating it and fixing the index; in
> fact, I'm working on a new edition right now that will fix those
> problems.
That's all good.
> However, I will still maintain that I know of no other published
> book that is more suitable for absolute beginners to C++ than the
> existing edition, and no one has been able to point out an exception.
> Therefore, unless EVERY book intended for absolute beginners gets a
> "Not Recommended", mine shouldn't get that rating either.
Glassborow gave his opinion on the basis of what he saw at the time the
book was published. I'm in no position to agree or disagree with him but
am glad to see that deficiencies are recognised and that there is a
resolve to improve.
Alwyn
Donovan Rebbechi
> "Daniel T." wrote:
>>
>> I seem to recal Mr. Glassborow refusing to help a C++ newbie on this
>> newsgroup (or c.l.c.m) because the person had a quote from the Bible as
>> his sig. (I say this with much trepidation because it might have been
>> someone else, I can't track it down on google.)
>>
>
> So let me be sure I've got this right: Glassboro's views on religion are
> fair game in assessing his skill as a writer, but Heller's aren't?
No, that's a straw man. His tendency to judge technical content on the basis
of the authors religion is fair game in assessing his objectivity in judging
technical content. FGs religious views are beside the point.
--
Donovan
Neil Butterworth
news:slrnabs5mh....@panix2.panix.com...
> How many books have you read where you can honestly say that the
> acknowledgements section was the most enriching part
Maybe not the most enriching, but often the most worrying! The close
relationship that many of the best known C++ authors seem to have with their
pets:
"And special thanks to my sweet cuddly gerbil Frankie, without who's help...
etc."
would seem to be cause for concern.
:-)
NeilB
Donovan Rebbechi
> Perhaps you read something into my example that isn't there. Let me try
> another: pretend that the acknowledments in a C++ book said "Although I
> know very little about C++, my eight-year old daughter told me all that
> I need to know." Would that have no affect on your assessment of the
> book and of its author?
In the absence of other information, perhaps. However, the whole damn point
of a technical book review is to *read* the other information. I'm not
interested in hearing the reviewers opinion on the authors religious views, and
I can read the blurbs myself. The whole point of the review is to shed some
light on the quality of the technical content.
--
Donovan
Pete Becker
>
> In article <3CBDCE35...@acm.org>, Pete Becker wrote:
> > Stephen Howe wrote:
>
> > It's amazing that you know that no book ever published or to be
> > published has anything useful in those pages.
>
> He doesn't know that.
Perhaps you should let him speak for himself. What he said was:
the front title page and back pages and
first few pages before the contents can be
ripped off and thrown in a furnace, they are of
no relevance
> However, it just happens that in the vast majority of
> cases, those pages do not form the most enriching part of the book.
Nobody has said anything to the contrary.
>
> How many books have you read where you can honestly say that the
> acknowledgements section was the most enriching part
None. But that has nothing to do with what I said. Pay attention this
time: I find it hard to believe that people are seriously claiming that
the contents of the acknowledgment of a book cannot ever be relevant to
evaluating the quality of the book.
Now, in simpler words, what that means is that I think that the
acknowledgments can sometimes be useful. Do you relly believe that that
is impossible?