* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-02 21:56 ` Randy Brukardt
@ 2014-07-03 7:13 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2014-07-03 7:20 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2014-07-03 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
I have John's 2005 Ada book. I like the book, except I wish
his examples where self contained such that they include
everything needed to copy and compile them. He likes
to make the examples short and only show the point, which
is fine, but I think making each example self contained
(i.e. including the program main and any packages used) is
better as it allows one to try the example more easily.
Sure this will make the book larger since each example
will be larger now, but may be using a little smaller
font and less white space on the sides of the pages would
help.
I do not know if this changed in his 2012 book.
--Nasser
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-02 21:56 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-07-03 7:13 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
@ 2014-07-03 7:20 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2014-07-03 15:34 ` kug1977
` (2 more replies)
2014-07-13 12:35 ` Luke A. Guest
2014-09-28 6:46 ` sjaniska
3 siblings, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2014-07-03 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 7/2/2014 4:56 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> Seriously, it is VERY heavy - I don't recall many books that heavy. (I just
> picked it up again and it still feels like a pair of bricks -- I hope the
> bookshelf is strong enough to hold it. :-) Next time I read it, it will have
> to be at a desk.
The 2005 version was 848 pages weight 1.4 kg. The 2012 version
is 967 pages, weight: 2.02kg. The difference in number of pages
is not linear with the difference in weight. They must have used
heavier paper in the 2012 version.
--Nasser
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-03 7:20 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
@ 2014-07-03 15:34 ` kug1977
2014-07-03 16:01 ` Adam Beneschan
2014-07-03 19:44 ` Randy Brukardt
2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: kug1977 @ 2014-07-03 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
> The 2012 version is 967 pages, weight: 2.02kg. The difference in number of pages
> is not linear with the difference in weight. They must have used
> heavier paper in the 2012 version.
After reading this, I will go for the ebook.
-kug1977
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-03 7:20 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2014-07-03 15:34 ` kug1977
@ 2014-07-03 16:01 ` Adam Beneschan
2014-07-03 19:44 ` Randy Brukardt
2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Adam Beneschan @ 2014-07-03 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:20:36 AM UTC-7, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 7/2/2014 4:56 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> The 2005 version was 848 pages weight 1.4 kg. The 2012 version
> is 967 pages, weight: 2.02kg. The difference in number of pages
> is not linear with the difference in weight. They must have used
> heavier paper in the 2012 version.
Either that, or Barnes added a lot weightier material .... :) :)
-- Adam
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-03 7:20 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2014-07-03 15:34 ` kug1977
2014-07-03 16:01 ` Adam Beneschan
@ 2014-07-03 19:44 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-07-03 23:06 ` Dennis Lee Bieber
2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Randy Brukardt @ 2014-07-03 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> wrote in message
news:lp308d$jrp$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 7/2/2014 4:56 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
>>
>> Seriously, it is VERY heavy - I don't recall many books that heavy. (I
>> just
>> picked it up again and it still feels like a pair of bricks -- I hope the
>> bookshelf is strong enough to hold it. :-) Next time I read it, it will
>> have
>> to be at a desk.
>
> The 2005 version was 848 pages weight 1.4 kg. The 2012 version
> is 967 pages, weight: 2.02kg. The difference in number of pages
> is not linear with the difference in weight. They must have used
> heavier paper in the 2012 version.
John had to change publishers, so I would guess that their specifications
are different. Usually I would be in favor of heavier paper (it usually
lasts longer), but not to the point of making the book heavier than
free-weights. :-)
Randy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-03 19:44 ` Randy Brukardt
@ 2014-07-03 23:06 ` Dennis Lee Bieber
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Dennis Lee Bieber @ 2014-07-03 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:44:53 -0500, "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
declaimed the following:
>John had to change publishers, so I would guess that their specifications
>are different. Usually I would be in favor of heavier paper (it usually
>lasts longer), but not to the point of making the book heavier than
>free-weights. :-)
>
It's apparently being priced by weight too, given the Amazon price for
the upcoming US release...
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-02 21:56 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-07-03 7:13 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2014-07-03 7:20 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
@ 2014-07-13 12:35 ` Luke A. Guest
2014-07-13 15:35 ` Anh Vo
2014-09-28 6:46 ` sjaniska
3 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luke A. Guest @ 2014-07-13 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
>> For that price you should get the PDF free with the book
>
> I think the price is mainly related to the physical size of the book. John
I have compared it to the 3.3 version of the opengl super bible, the Ada
book has abot 10 less pages but is about 5mm taller, the GL book is
substantially thicker and I think I paid in the region if £30ish for it.
I would the price is high probably because they don't think it wi sell
many. The 2005 book didn't last long, don't think this will either.
They're both heavy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-13 12:35 ` Luke A. Guest
@ 2014-07-13 15:35 ` Anh Vo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Anh Vo @ 2014-07-13 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Sunday, July 13, 2014 5:35:52 AM UTC-7, Luke A. Guest wrote:
> >> For that price you should get the PDF free with the book
>
>
> > I think the price is mainly related to the physical size of the book. John
>
> They're both heavy.
Any valuable book like this one costs < $100.00 is worth it these days. After all, knowledge is invaluable. If PDF form is availble also, I may order both.
Anh Vo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: New edition of John Barnes' classic book
2014-07-02 21:56 ` Randy Brukardt
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-07-13 12:35 ` Luke A. Guest
@ 2014-09-28 6:46 ` sjaniska
3 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: sjaniska @ 2014-09-28 6:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:56:46 PM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> I think the price is mainly related to the physical size of the book. John
>
> gave me one of the author's copies (I forgot to have him sign it - darn) at
>
> our recent ARG meeting. I tried to read a bit of it in bed that night, and I
>
> think I cut off the circulation in my legs. :-) I didn't read it for long.
I've Barnes' Ada 95 and, somehow,until now, didn't have much time to dive into it.
Now, seeing that Ada 2012 book is ready I wonder whether I should take advantage of '95 book' and then try to catch up to 2012 or to buy Ada 2012 version?
I did download preview version for my Kobo reader, but I must say that although it would cost me half of the dead-tree version, I still prefer holding book in my hands despite of potential circulation problems.
Any hint whether 2012 is significantly different to justify buying it?
It's a bit pricey (for me) and I have intention to use Ada for open-source project(s).
Sincerely,
Gour
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread