Re: Looking for good Ada95 book

[mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)]

In article <56paj4$bu0$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:

>There is a non-sequitur here.
>From the fact that they did not *object*,
>you *cannot* infer that they saw your logic,
>or that they "went along with it".

Some were silent; others explicitly said the choice was OK.

>If they specifically *said* in their reviews that they
>saw the logic or were happy with the result
>(as opposed to reluctantly accepting it because of the
>book's other merits) then you can infer these things.

Right.

>The most you can infer from silence is that they didn't
>consider it _enough_ of a problem to object about.

Right, and they were paid (by the publisher) to object if they 
saw anything worth objecting about.

>I also note a little bit of selection here.
>Concerning the book "Ada 95 Problem Solving and Program Design",
>which is the only CS1 book of yours I've seen,
>one reviewer did *not* see the logic, did *not* go along,
>and *did* complain.  I know, because that was me.
>Perhaps you are referring to pre-publication reviewers.

Yes, sorry - I thought it was obvious. Post-publication reviews
are good feedback for the next edition, but next editions typically
happen several years apart.

>Again, I must stress that Feldman's books have great merits.
>My position is like the Frenchman in the 18th century who was
>about to propose to a woman when he saw a louse crawl out of
>her wig.  Sometimes small things loom large.

True enough, and I've certainly heard everyone's points here.
In a published book (as opposed to, say, a web site:-)) major
changes happen with each new _edition_. Typos get fixed when
the book is _reprinted_ (and the book is now in its 3rd
printing), but a wholesale change like the keyword capitalization
is not a typo.

>There are three issues here, and they are different.

>(1) Will protest die down if you make a change?

There will always be something to complain about in a book. We'll have to
wait a couple of years to see, because that's how long it'll be till
there's any change.

>(2) Will more people buy your books if you make a change?

Dunno. We'll see how the various competitors make out. Certainly if
some current or potential adopter says "we're switching to Mr. <name>'s
book, and Feldman's horrible shouted keywords is an important reason",
that will be pretty good evidence to answer yes to your question.

While I am certainly happy when individual programmers buy my stuff
in Borders or other "trade bookstores", they are not the main market 
for a book like this. CS1 books are written for higher-ed courses,
and it's the _teachers_ that adopt them for their classes, not the
students.

>(3) Will students learn better if you make a change?

This cries out for a controlled study, but I'll leave that to someone
else. Meanwhile, I've explained _why_ I made the choice I did, so we
might as well move on to more interesting things because no change
will happen for a couple of years anyway.

>You are insisting on your present scheme because of (3), and you are
>exactly right in your attitude.  If you are *factually* right as well;
>if someone can come up with good-looking *evidence* that putting keywords
>in caps is better for our students than putting keywords in lower case;
>then I will switch to your still and beg you to stick to it.

As I said, many Pascal teachers have used this style, and not just for
historical reasons. I'm following that tradition (at least in this
edition).

>I can't speak for anyone else, but you can silence me *completely* on
>this topic and convert me to your style *by showing me the experimental
>evidence*.  It should be a fairly straightforward experiment to perform.
>(Although double-blind is clearly out of the question...)

Well, it would be pretty hard, actually, because you'd need two 
otherwise-identical versions of all the materials, including the book -
one with my keyword style, the other with lowercase. In a controlled
study (I've done some...) one needs to be careful to hold everything
constant but the variable you're measuring. It's a nice idea, but
in this case it's logistically intractable.

Can we put this issue to bed, finally?

>Mixed Member Proportional---a *great* way to vote!

I agree, and I like Australia's compulsory voting, especially after
our ridiculously low turnout here. I'd settle for a none-of-the-above
line on the ballot. More than 50% here voted that line by staying home.:-)

>Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.

Mike Feldman