From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,808505c9db7d5613 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) Subject: Re: Looking for good Ada95 book Date: 1996/11/18 Message-ID: <56rbmm$kc8@felix.seas.gwu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 197353398 references: <32723F6A.54A3@dtek.chalmers.se> <56b275$6k4@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <56paj4$bu0$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> organization: George Washington University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <56paj4$bu0$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, Richard A. O'Keefe 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. '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