> I'm also wondering why there isn't more of a flip-flop between liberal
> and conservative influence on school curriculums as voting blocks swing
> between conservatives and liberals?
Texas requires a huge number of text books. Book publishers don't want to print multiple versions of a text. Texas votes conservative/republican, so the national trend (conservative or liberal) at any point in time doesn't matter much as far as text book publishing goes.
I hate these "Homebrew Xxxx"/. article titles. My initial, reactionary thought is always that the article has something to do with the more interesting topic of brewing beer from home. Then a second later my excitement fades when I realize it's just another tech article...
It depends on whether you're writing for a publisher or are self-publishing.
I've written about 20 tech books for major publishers. They all used MS Word. It's the publisher's call. If they use Word, then the editors will use Word - including the tech editor and copy editor, who will both use Word's comment feature to enter their comments.
Spend what seems a disproportionate amount of time writing the table of contents. That organizes the whole book for you and makes everything following flow better.
Gear your writing for the target audience. If the book is for a beginner/intermediate level audience, write it that way. The book isn't a vehicle for your knowledge. The book is intended to teach the reader a topic, not to inform the reader how much you know about the topic.
From the article submission:
> Did you encounter any surprises that you wish you
> had known about back when you started out?
Yes. One big surprise is how little money you'll make;-)
I'm a software engineer. I don't participate in open source software. Maybe because of that I'm missing some key bit of information. Why, in general, is it that people think there should be any free aspect to software development? Why is it viewed differently than any other line of work? I expect to pay anyone who has knowledge I don't have, whether it's a car mechanic, plumber, doctor, whatever. I understand that others can profit from open source software by adding to it, offering support, etc. But that seems to be done off the back of many programmers who participated initially creating the open source base of software. Aren't programmers devaluing their worth by working so hard to make as much as possible free? Not baiting anyone, I'm really curious, and would like to be enlightened by programmers (especially those who work on open source for nothing, and then see it made profitable by someone else).
People think in ways more inline with a 3D world than menus and submenus. Even if most of us can get used to it, I've seen people pissed because they can't find the "contact us" link. In a 3D world, that would be represented by a telephone or computer or mailbox etc.
Isn't that just an example of a GUI, like the icons on an OS desktop (trash can, etc.)? I don't think replacing menus with icons represents a 3D browser (and many sites already do include icons in place of menus or text links). Just what is a 3D browser supposed to represent as 3D (really wondering)?
That was part of it. More importantly, though, was Microsoft's hand in things. Be's demise was mostly due to Microsoft's predatory practices (surprise, surprise). Be filed suit against MS for the destruction of Be's business through anticompetitive acts. In particular, Be claimed MS did shady things to prevent PC makers from including BeOS on dual-boot PCs.
MS and Be settled by MS agreeing to pay Be something like $25 million (and admitting no wrongdoing).
I had one of the original BeBox computers, as well as running the BeOS on both PCs and Macs. Too bad it's gone. Pretty cool while it lasted...
I've written about twenty programming books, including entry-level books (like "Mac Programming For Dummies"), and I think writing to the beginner is harder than writing to experienced programmers. It's not easy never being able to write "as you know from previous experience with..." - very hard not having that crutch to lean on;-) From feedback I've received from readers, and from the fact that computer users are familiar with apps that have many options/features (like MS Word), I'd go with the IDE.
Just as most users have no problem ignoring/never learning most MS Word features (table of contents, tracking changes, online collaboration, etc.), most beginning programmers won't have any problem ignoring the vast majority of IDE features. Make a handout that includes a few screen dumps of the IDE with only the most pertinent menu items highlighted, such as Compile and Run. Tell them they're free to explore IDE features, but they'll only be expected to know a few (the ones you detail). Users know about hierarchies from working with files and folders on the desktop, so they shouldn't have a problem viewing files and folders in a pane of an IDE. Users know about typing text in Notepad, so they shouldn't have a problem typing code into an IDE's integrated text editor. For most non-programmers compiling by selecting a menu item is probably more intuitive than typing a compile command from a command line interface. Most users have never used a CLI, so that's something new. They use GUI apps all the time, so an IDE isn't really something new - it's just another app with a bunch of menu item options.
Slashdot Mirror
Various pilot unions are very concerned about the amount of radiation their members are being exposed to.
Hey, I'm all for guys protecting their genitals, but shouldn't the union also be concerned about the other body parts being subject to radiation?
Anatomy class, for example. Play doctor and get credit.
Man, now I feel like I have a dirty mind...
You? I feel worse - like I have a dirty and sick mind. I read the subject line as "Just make corpses more fun"
> I'm also wondering why there isn't more of a flip-flop between liberal > and conservative influence on school curriculums as voting blocks swing > between conservatives and liberals? Texas requires a huge number of text books. Book publishers don't want to print multiple versions of a text. Texas votes conservative/republican, so the national trend (conservative or liberal) at any point in time doesn't matter much as far as text book publishing goes.
I hate these "Homebrew Xxxx" /. article titles. My initial, reactionary thought is always that the article has something to do with the more interesting topic of brewing beer from home. Then a second later my excitement fades when I realize it's just another tech article ...
It depends on whether you're writing for a publisher or are self-publishing.
;-)
I've written about 20 tech books for major publishers. They all used MS Word. It's the publisher's call. If they use Word, then the editors will use Word - including the tech editor and copy editor, who will both use Word's comment feature to enter their comments.
Spend what seems a disproportionate amount of time writing the table of contents. That organizes the whole book for you and makes everything following flow better.
Gear your writing for the target audience. If the book is for a beginner/intermediate level audience, write it that way. The book isn't a vehicle for your knowledge. The book is intended to teach the reader a topic, not to inform the reader how much you know about the topic.
From the article submission:
> Did you encounter any surprises that you wish you > had known about back when you started out?
Yes. One big surprise is how little money you'll make
I'm a software engineer. I don't participate in open source software. Maybe because of that I'm missing some key bit of information. Why, in general, is it that people think there should be any free aspect to software development? Why is it viewed differently than any other line of work? I expect to pay anyone who has knowledge I don't have, whether it's a car mechanic, plumber, doctor, whatever. I understand that others can profit from open source software by adding to it, offering support, etc. But that seems to be done off the back of many programmers who participated initially creating the open source base of software. Aren't programmers devaluing their worth by working so hard to make as much as possible free? Not baiting anyone, I'm really curious, and would like to be enlightened by programmers (especially those who work on open source for nothing, and then see it made profitable by someone else).
Isn't that just an example of a GUI, like the icons on an OS desktop (trash can, etc.)? I don't think replacing menus with icons represents a 3D browser (and many sites already do include icons in place of menus or text links). Just what is a 3D browser supposed to represent as 3D (really wondering)?
> BeOS went down because of the lack of apps.
That was part of it. More importantly, though, was Microsoft's hand in things. Be's demise was mostly due to Microsoft's predatory practices (surprise, surprise). Be filed suit against MS for the destruction of Be's business through anticompetitive acts. In particular, Be claimed MS did shady things to prevent PC makers from including BeOS on dual-boot PCs.
MS and Be settled by MS agreeing to pay Be something like $25 million (and admitting no wrongdoing).
I had one of the original BeBox computers, as well as running the BeOS on both PCs and Macs. Too bad it's gone. Pretty cool while it lasted...
I agree with going with an IDE.
I've written about twenty programming books, including entry-level books (like "Mac Programming For Dummies"), and I think writing to the beginner is harder than writing to experienced programmers. It's not easy never being able to write "as you know from previous experience with ..." - very hard not having that crutch to lean on ;-) From feedback I've received from readers, and from the fact that computer users are familiar with apps that have many options/features (like MS Word), I'd go with the IDE.
Just as most users have no problem ignoring/never learning most MS Word features (table of contents, tracking changes, online collaboration, etc.), most beginning programmers won't have any problem ignoring the vast majority of IDE features. Make a handout that includes a few screen dumps of the IDE with only the most pertinent menu items highlighted, such as Compile and Run. Tell them they're free to explore IDE features, but they'll only be expected to know a few (the ones you detail). Users know about hierarchies from working with files and folders on the desktop, so they shouldn't have a problem viewing files and folders in a pane of an IDE. Users know about typing text in Notepad, so they shouldn't have a problem typing code into an IDE's integrated text editor. For most non-programmers compiling by selecting a menu item is probably more intuitive than typing a compile command from a command line interface. Most users have never used a CLI, so that's something new. They use GUI apps all the time, so an IDE isn't really something new - it's just another app with a bunch of menu item options.
Dan Parks Sydow