RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

skeet — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:59:18 GMT

@Rob: I'll probably be expanding that log file scenario in the second edition - I really like it too :)

I do like the idea of "C# in Practice" but I'm not sure that it quite fits into the book itself. I suspect it would work very well as a free companion ebook though. The one trouble is that I'm really bad at creating realistic examples! Hopefully I'm improving though...

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

Rob Kent — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:53:32 GMT

I really enjoyed the first edition and I think I would probably buy the second edition (unless I'd already read the new bits online :).

A lot of what I read in the first edition was already familiar to me (probably from reading your web posts and my own usage). Strangely, the thing that really jumped out at me was that little real-world example of using Linq to read all the log files in a directory in three lines of code.

I know that the usage and application of C# is not what the book is about, and it would also be difficult or overly selective to choose real-world examples, but a chapter of neat usages gleaned from your own experience or from questions on Stack Overflow, might help a lot of developers find a shortcut to good practice.

So a chapter called 'C# in Practice' or 'C# in Common Scenarios' might be useful, especially if it was conceptually continuous with the earlier discussions of language features and exemplified them with likely and usable examples.

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

Igal Tabachnik — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:54:40 GMT

Just got an email from Manning announcing the 2nd edition and offering 60% discount code for the book (meap + ebook/softbound)! Make sure not to let this one go in your trash :)

I just pre-ordered mine! Can't wait!

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

skeet — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:18:37 GMT

@jeff and @rfin: I certainly hope to have some more news on this fairly soon :)

Jon

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

rfin — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:14:22 GMT

I've read and enjoyed c# in depth because it was well written, informative and (importantly) slim. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a "volume 2" style book that builds on the current book, rather than reiterating big sections. Not sure i'd buy a big thick book, as i've already got loads of those to plough through

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

jeff — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:25:11 GMT

On the subway this morning reading C# in Depth, Chapter 8. Woman next to me in business suit and smart glasses, who'd been looking over my shoulder for the last 5 pages, as I was getting off: "what book were you reading? I was trying to recognize just one word to figure out what it was about."

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

jeff — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:34:11 GMT

I'm in group #3.

"what might persuade you to buy the second edition?"

"new stuff" as you suggest in your second question:

"How much "new" stuff is required?"

There has to be some sort of "tree killer" test here since I probably won't need anything that's in the 1st ed. 30-50% new content?

"[..] significantly thicker book, or does the relative slimness of C# in Depth hold real appeal?"

'Slim' is actually of enormous appeal to me (coming from a generation of 550 page programming books). I immediately recognized that this book was compact and to the point for a targeted audience, rather than a catch-all tome. I can actually carry this book on the subway.

"The second edition certainly will be thicker [...]"

I think that's unfortunate. I'd rather see a "Part II" than a "Director's Cut". Is a whole new book focusing just on C# 3/4 possible?

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

Emperor Ming — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:08:38 GMT

Less is definitely more. I'd rather re-read a book that puts it succinctly than try to find the real information in endless wads of blubber.

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

top — Thu, 14 May 2009 07:05:10 GMT

I havent read the first edition, but I will buy coming edition, thats for sure!

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

Petar Repac — Tue, 12 May 2009 10:46:46 GMT

ayende.com/.../review-c-in-depth.aspx

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

skeet — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:57:52 GMT

@drian: Personally I tend to use the latter. I've used "m_myField" (which isn't really Hungarian, btw) in previous jobs, but never found it particularly helpful. Underscores tend to form a mental obstacle to the way I read code.

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

drian — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:14:57 GMT

Jon, a rather offtopic question:

I would like to know how you usually name private class fields in C#. Do you prefer

string _myField;

string myField;

I believe the C# coding guidelines suggest the latter variant. However when I open up various Microsoft assemblies using Reflector, I mostly see the first variant, sometimes even hungariant notation like m_myField :/ What is your opinion on this?

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:28:04 GMT

Already working on the next revision, are you? You wouldn't have this problem if your language was designed by committee ;)

Anyway, a possible title for Part 4 might be "Rapid Development in an e-Fulfillment World" b/c that seems to be a lot of the motivation for dynamic typing.

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

skeet — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:22:17 GMT

Chris,

I'm trying to see what I can do about the "only buying 33% of the book" issue - but isn't it useful to be able to read that 33% directly, knowing that *this* is the bit containing the new stuff, and then have the rest of the book as reference for a later date?

I would have expected that to be more useful than having to pick through individual topics throughout the whole book to find the stuff you're really interested in (the new bits).

(Responses to the rest of the comments coming when I have time, btw... sorry, I'm really snowed under right now!)

Jon

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

Chris Mullins — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:48:38 GMT

One of the features I'm most looking forward to is code contracts. I believe these will make a large difference in the ability to write code with fewer bugs.

I would like to see this be a bit deeper than just a final section in the C# 4 area.

At a personal preference level, I don't really like to see the book broken down by "C# 2, 3, 4". As I alread know C# 2 & 3, this would mean I'm only buying 33% of the book...

I would prefer to see this as a C#4 book, and in turn broken down by functional areas. The content is all the same, but the arrangement would be slightly different as a result.

Chris

Jon Skeet: Planning C# In Depth 2 | Coded Style

Jon Skeet: Planning C# In Depth 2 | Coded Style — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:34:28 GMT

Pingback from Jon Skeet: Planning C# In Depth 2 | Coded Style

Jon Skeet: Planning C# In Depth 2

Kirill Osenkov — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:22:12 GMT

Jon is asking advice about how to shape the second edition of his book “C# In Depth” . Jon, I like your

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

PK — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:14:27 GMT

I'd rather read this book focusing on old stuff AND C# 4.0 as one.

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

Anthony Tarlano — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:55:30 GMT

Jon,

Good to hear that you will update the book for C# 4.

I think that your first books focus on only the C# 3 language and its separation of concerns for items such as the BCL and general CLR issues was one of the specific reasons why your first book was concise and had depth.

Having said that I would think that any deviations outside of introducing those missing items not covered from The C# Programming Language, 3rd Edition, (more specifically topics such as attributes and unsafe code) in addition to the new items that will be in the The C# Programming Language, 4th Edition, should be supplementary material on the website and not in the book.

For example what would you think if you bought an "in depth" book on one language only to be given a shallow introduction to another language?

I agree with Dijkstra who asserted that to study in depth an aspect of one's subject matter in isolation for the sake of its own consistency is the separation of concerns principle.

Just my 2 cents for your consideration.

Best Regards,

Anthony

re: RFC: C# in Depth 2nd edition, proposed changes and additions

pejvan — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:28:39 GMT

Hi Jon,

I read the book already, and I love it.

One thing I would really find valuable to have in the 2nd edition covering C# 4 is to be able to catch up with the new language features and changes without having to read the whole book again. I am pretty sure most of the people who read the first edition would like the idea.

Thanks for the hard work,

pejvan (at gmail)

PS: where to place the pre-order? ;-)