Quick addendum... > In my experience the editors > do a lot of work checking through the chapters. But there > is always the problem of time.
As someone's just reminded me, I should also say the reviewers do a lot of work checking through the chapters, and usually chapters get vastly improved as a result of their efforts. Sorry for leaving them out. Simon --------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Robinson http://www.SimonRobinson.com --------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [DOTNET] Wrox > I guess as the main author of Pro C# I ought to reply to that :) > > There were far too many typos in the 1st edition of the book, > as I think Julian Skinner, the main editor, has also stated. > That was I'd say caused by the rush to get the book into print > as soon as possible to meet the demand for a book on the > subject when .NET beta2 was released last year. There were > some pretty heavy discussions about the issue as soon as > the first copies of the book appeared and the authors and > editors saw what had happened in terms of typos. At the > time I did > get the impression of a real determination at Wrox Press > to make sure that kind of thing didn't happen again. > > A few people have commented that Wrox books look > like they haven't been edited. Even if the typos give that > impression, that's not the case. In my experience the editors > do a lot of work checking through the chapters. But there > is always the problem of time. > > There is a wider issue of how useful a book that has > multiple authors can be - and I'd certainly agree that if you > have lots of authors each writing one or two chapters then > you can't really do the kind of detailed digging into > technologies that you find in books like Essential COM > or Professional DCOM - arguably the standard-bearers > when it comes to great books that go beyond the > documentation. And, depending on the subject > matter, that can be a problem. The other side to that > however is, once again, time. (Remember that COM > had been around for a couple of years before either Pro DCOM > or Essential COM appeared). Writing a decent book > can typically take 6 months to a year if you're doing it > as a solo effort. Add time for editing . And remember too > that since the author is almost certainly also actively > doing programming work (I suspect most readers would > expect that because they want to know that the author > is experienced and up-to-date!) then that author > cannot by definition be working completely full time > on the book. > > How many developers would want to wait that long > when a big new technology appears before any books > come out to explain the technology? There will > always be a need for at least a few books to get > published a lot more quickly. So there's > obviously a balance between time on the one hand > and lack of typos/depth of subject matter on the other > hand. > > With hindsight I'd say that Pro C# 1st edition > went too far on the side of time and it would have > been better to have waited a couple more weeks to > sort out typos etc., and allow a bit more time for > writing, (although that would have meant a fair few > frustrated developers who wanted a book during > those couple of weeks). > > But then decisions like that > are always easier with hindsight aren't they :) > > Simon > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Simon Robinson > http://www.SimonRobinson.com > --------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Janssen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:38 PM > Subject: Re: [DOTNET] Wrox > > > > A few typos here or there is no big deal. But the first edition > > of "Profession C#" didn't seem like it was even looked at by an editor. I > > stopped reading after a few chapters because the typos and grammatical > > errors were so irrating. Makes me wonder about the validity of the code > > samples. I've read similiar comments about other Wrox books on > > bookpool.com. Because of this I have not purchased any more Wrox books. > > > > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or > > subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. > > > > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or > subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. > You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
