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