Fwd: Pro Scala

Dear Scalarazzi,
Here's the short form of this email. i wanted to pass on some news about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have already been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and having a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
Here's the long form of this email. To my mind this is just a wrinkle because i will publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into the project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be clear, the book project is on github here. i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010 where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado) until the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns. Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always be more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved out hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand, doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on the book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time that i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had a stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below. 
However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers are to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract negotiation with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher -- just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We are not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the latter sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real understanding.
In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily basis. That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep way. They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and simplify what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper" into a subject. 
On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the years happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in a good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist in relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i write will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of interest, and that includes both practical and theoretical discussion, both topical and historical context.
So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see again.
Best wishes,
--greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duncan Parkes <duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Pro Scala
To: Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com>


Hi Greg

I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
Pro Scala.

The reasons  behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.

More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
write on anything else!

Duncan

--
Duncan Parkes  | Open Source Editor
Apress Inc
Phone:  +44 (0)1865 724879
Mobile:  +44 (0)7879 248791
Email:  duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
XMPP:  dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
The Expert's Voice™  www.apress.com



--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com

Based on our experience with Apress with Lift book I strongly recommend choosing a different publisher. It has been a huge disappointment starting from the contract signing, title renaming, leaving out the appendixes, payment problems etc.
Yes I WANT your book but I do believe you'd be better with other publisher.


Br's,Marius

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
Here's the short form of this email. i wanted to pass on some news about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have already been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and having a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
Here's the long form of this email. To my mind this is just a wrinkle because i will publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into the project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be clear, the book project is on github here. i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010 where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado) until the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns. Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always be more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved out hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand, doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on the book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time that i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had a stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below. 
However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers are to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract negotiation with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher -- just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We are not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the latter sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real understanding.
In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily basis. That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep way. They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and simplify what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper" into a subject. 
On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the years happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in a good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist in relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i write will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of interest, and that includes both practical and theoretical discussion, both topical and historical context.
So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see again.
Best wishes,
--greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duncan Parkes <duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Pro Scala
To: Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com>


Hi Greg

I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
Pro Scala.

The reasons  behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.

More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
write on anything else!

Duncan

--
Duncan Parkes  | Open Source Editor
Apress Inc
Phone:  +44 (0)1865 724879
Mobile:  +44 (0)7879 248791
Email:  duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
XMPP:  dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
The Expert's Voice™  www.apress.com



--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com

Dear Scalarazzi,
Here's the short form of this email. i wanted to pass on some news about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have already been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and having a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
Here's the long form of this email. To my mind this is just a wrinkle because i will publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into the project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be clear, the book project is on github here. i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010 where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado) until the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns. Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always be more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved out hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand, doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on the book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time that i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had a stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below. 
However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers are to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract negotiation with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher -- just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We are not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the latter sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real understanding.
In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily basis. That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep way. They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and simplify what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper" into a subject. 
On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the years happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in a good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist in relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i write will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of interest, and that includes both practical and theoretical discussion, both topical and historical context.
So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see again.
Best wishes,
--greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duncan Parkes <duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Pro Scala
To: Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com>


Hi Greg

I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
Pro Scala.

The reasons  behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.

More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
write on anything else!

Duncan

--
Duncan Parkes  | Open Source Editor
Apress Inc
Phone:  +44 (0)1865 724879
Mobile:  +44 (0)7879 248791
Email:  duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
XMPP:  dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
The Expert's Voice™  www.apress.com



--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com

 
  Greg, wherever you manage to get your book published, I want a copy,
and I agree with you 500% on the sorry state of the computer bookshelf.

 Max


On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
Here's the short form of this email. i wanted to pass on some news about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have already been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and having a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
Here's the long form of this email. To my mind this is just a wrinkle because i will publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into the project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be clear, the book project is on github here. i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010 where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado) until the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns. Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always be more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved out hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand, doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on the book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time that i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had a stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below. 
However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers are to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract negotiation with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher -- just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We are not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the latter sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real understanding.
In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily basis. That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep way. They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and simplify what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper" into a subject. 
On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the years happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in a good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist in relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i write will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of interest, and that includes both practical and theoretical discussion, both topical and historical context.
So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see again.
Best wishes,
--greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duncan Parkes <duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Pro Scala
To: Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com>


Hi Greg

I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
Pro Scala.

The reasons  behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.

More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
write on anything else!

Duncan

--
Duncan Parkes  | Open Source Editor
Apress Inc
Phone:  +44 (0)1865 724879
Mobile:  +44 (0)7879 248791
Email:  duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
XMPP:  dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
The Expert's Voice™  www.apress.com



--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com

Greg

No matter what and even of you publish your book independently I will go
ahead and buy it.
Apress must be hands down the most stupid publisher to turn this book down
as the subject matter is top notch.

Meredith Gregory wrote:
>
> Dear Scalarazzi,
>
> *Here's the short form of this email.* i wanted to pass on some news about
> the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email
> below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two
> principal
> reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on
> the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some
> "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for
> a
> point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have
> already
> been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and
> having
> a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
>
> *Here's the long form of this email.* To my mind this is just a wrinkle
> because i *will* publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several
> hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into
> the
> project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be
> clear, the book project is on github
> here.
> i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010
> where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado)
> until
> the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all
> comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an
> inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
>
> That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns.
> Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always
> be
> more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that
> this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it
> for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release
> delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a
> domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved
> out
> hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new
> window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand,
> doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on
> the
> book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time
> that
> i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had
> a
> stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below.
>
> However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason
> for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my
> experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got
> an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader
> Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing
> not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers
> are
> to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are
> enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract
> negotiation
> with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to
> shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to
> dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i
> was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher
> --
> just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to
> say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We
> are
> not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or
> historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the
> latter
> sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real
> understanding.
>
> In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They
> have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily
> basis.
> That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take
> pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep
> way.
> They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and *
> simplify* what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers
> understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper"
> into a subject.
>
> On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the
> years
> happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family
> visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science
> section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in
> a
> good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was
> lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and
> Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist
> in
> relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have
> watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera
> that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its
> dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i
> write
> will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more
> importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that
> people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of
> interest, and that includes both practical *and* theoretical discussion,
> both topical *and* historical context.
>
> So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer
> science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure
> trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have
> to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see
> again.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --greg
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Duncan Parkes
> Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
> Subject: Pro Scala
> To: Meredith Gregory
>
>
> Hi Greg
>
> I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
> Pro Scala.
>
> The reasons behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
> just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
> are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.
>
> More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
> well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
> don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
> made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
> the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.
>
> I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
> ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
> write on anything else!
>
> Duncan
>
> --
> Duncan Parkes | Open Source Editor
> Apress Inc
> Phone: +44 (0)1865 724879
> Mobile: +44 (0)7879 248791
> Email: duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
> XMPP: dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
> The Expert's Voice™ www.apress.com
>
>
>

Speaking as someone who buys a lot of technology books, is married to a
published author, and was indeed playing with writing a book on Scala, I
have to say that any day that you sever your relationship with Apress books
has to be considered a good day. I've never picked up an Apress book that
I didn't think was cheap, sleazy, and lacking in essential detail. I was
more than a little sad when I saw that the Lift people worked with them
(although it didn't stop be from buying an e-copy). Try pitching to
Manning or Pragmatic.

Speaking as someone who buys a lot of technology books, is married to a
published author, and was indeed playing with writing a book on Scala, I
have to say that any day that you sever your relationship with Apress books
has to be considered a good day.   I've never picked up an Apress book that
I didn't think was cheap, sleazy, and lacking in essential detail.  I was
more than a little sad when I saw that the Lift people worked with them
(although it didn't stop be from buying an e-copy).   Try pitching to
Manning or Pragmatic.

--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27725607.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dear Scalarazzi,
Here's the short form of this email. i wanted to pass on some news about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have already been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and having a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
Here's the long form of this email. To my mind this is just a wrinkle because i will publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into the project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be clear, the book project is on github here. i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010 where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado) until the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns. Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always be more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved out hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand, doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on the book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time that i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had a stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below. 
However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers are to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract negotiation with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher -- just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We are not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the latter sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real understanding.
In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily basis. That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep way. They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and simplify what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper" into a subject. 
On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the years happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in a good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist in relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i write will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of interest, and that includes both practical and theoretical discussion, both topical and historical context.
So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see again.
Best wishes,
--greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duncan Parkes <duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Pro Scala
To: Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com>


Hi Greg

I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
Pro Scala.

The reasons  behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.

More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
write on anything else!

Duncan

--
Duncan Parkes  | Open Source Editor
Apress Inc
Phone:  +44 (0)1865 724879
Mobile:  +44 (0)7879 248791
Email:  duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
XMPP:  dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
The Expert's Voice™  www.apress.com



--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com

Meredith,
As one of the intro book authors, I'm very sorry to hear this news. I wish you the best of luck in finding another publisher. If I can be of any help, please let me know.
dean

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

Dear Scalarazzi,
Here's the short form of this email. i wanted to pass on some news about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have already been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and having a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
Here's the long form of this email. To my mind this is just a wrinkle because i will publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into the project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be clear, the book project is on github here. i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010 where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado) until the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns. Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always be more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved out hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand, doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on the book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time that i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had a stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below. 
However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers are to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract negotiation with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher -- just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We are not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the latter sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real understanding.
In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily basis. That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep way. They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and simplify what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper" into a subject. 
On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the years happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in a good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist in relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i write will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of interest, and that includes both practical and theoretical discussion, both topical and historical context.
So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see again.
Best wishes,
--greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duncan Parkes <duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Pro Scala
To: Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com>


Hi Greg

I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
Pro Scala.

The reasons  behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.

More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
write on anything else!

Duncan

--
Duncan Parkes  | Open Source Editor
Apress Inc
Phone:  +44 (0)1865 724879
Mobile:  +44 (0)7879 248791
Email:  duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
XMPP:  dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
The Expert's Voice™  www.apress.com



--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com

--
Dean Wampler
coauthor of "Programming Scala" (O'Reilly)
-  http://programmingscala.com

twitter: @deanwampler, @chicagoscala
blog: http://blog.polyglotprogramming.com
Chicago-Area Scala Enthusiasts (CASE):
-  http://groups.google.com/group/chicagoscala
-  http://www.meetup.com/chicagoscala/ (Meetings)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/deanwampler
http://www.polyglotprogramming.com
http://aquarium.rubyforge.org
http://www.contract4j.org

On 27/02/10 07:27, Meredith Gregory wrote:

>
> Thank you! The show of support is really humbling and inspiring at the
> same time! It gives me that much more reason to keep on writing.
>
> With very best wishes,
>
> --greg
>

Good luck with the book.
Don't forget us paperless readers.

--snipped--

Le 26/02/2010 19:42, Meredith Gregory a écrit :
> Dear Scalarazzi,
>
> /Here's the short form of this email./ i wanted to pass on some news
> about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see
> the email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited
> two principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a
> "deeper" book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like
> this with some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the
> email below for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't
> respond, i have already been in touch with another publisher who has
> expressed interest, and having a show of support will be invaluable in
> changing publication venue. [...]

Be assured that their is people interested in your book !

And I believe that you get it right about the needed depth of computer
books. If a book is a simple tutorial or intro to some hype techno, why
should I buy it ? It will be obsolete in a matter of months, and the
content would be better served online.

When I buy a book, I want it to make me think, to battle with its
content for days, to have it drive me to knowledge I wouldn't have look
for by myself - and yes, context is primordial, be it historical or
theoretical.

So please, make that book happens :)

Greg,

I think you're spot on with your bookstore analysis and I for one
would probably buy the book when it comes out.

That being said, I'm curious that no one commented on the following paragraph:

> More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
> well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
> don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
> made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
> the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I'm by no means a publishing expert so don't know if this is just a
lame excuse, but if the above assessment is correct, what does that
mean for Scala as a language (if anything :-)

/Jeppe

Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> I think you're spot on with your bookstore analysis and I for one
> would probably buy the book when it comes out.
>
> That being said, I'm curious that no one commented on the following
> paragraph:
>
>> More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
>> well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
>> don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
>> made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
>> the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.
>
> I'm by no means a publishing expert so don't know if this is just a
> lame excuse, but if the above assessment is correct, what does that
> mean for Scala as a language (if anything :-)
>
> /Jeppe
>
>
It (maybe) means that most programmers like to learn about a programming
language by simply coding.

Speaking as someone who buys a lot of technology books, is married to a
published author, and was indeed playing with writing a book on Scala, I
have to say that any day that you sever your relationship with Apress books
has to be considered a good day.   I've never picked up an Apress book that
I didn't think was cheap, sleazy, and lacking in essential detail.  I was
more than a little sad when I saw that the Lift people worked with them
(although it didn't stop be from buying an e-copy).   Try pitching to
Manning or Pragmatic.

--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27725607.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi Meredith,

I am very sorry that your contract is cancelled. But I am convinced
there is a market for a book like the one you are writing, so I do
hope that you will find another publisher. I am not sure what APress'
view of the market is, but I am certainly very happy with the sales of
our book at Artima. We have sold over 10K, which I am told is already
on the high end for a technical title and sales keep going strong. If
I extrapolate to the other titles and the current sales rate (risky to
do), my best estimate is that by the end of 2010 there should be about
50K Scala books sold. That looks like a big enough market to sell a
more advanced book to!

Cheers

Dave,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Dave Griffith <dave [dot] l [dot] griffith [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

Speaking as someone who buys a lot of technology books, is married to a
published author, and was indeed playing with writing a book on Scala, I
have to say that any day that you sever your relationship with Apress books
has to be considered a good day.   I've never picked up an Apress book that
I didn't think was cheap, sleazy, and lacking in essential detail.  I was
more than a little sad when I saw that the Lift people worked with them
(although it didn't stop be from buying an e-copy).   Try pitching to
Manning or Pragmatic.

I am not going to the substance of Greg's book, nor his relationship with Apress.

I chose Apress for Beginning Scala because I have the highest respect for Gary Cornell, the founder of Apress.  I spoke with virtually every tech publisher about a Lift or Scala book before choosing Apress as my publisher.  My editor, Steve Anglin, took the time to meet for coffee rather than a hurried 30 minute call.  Steve had a reasonable knowledge of Scala's background, adoption rate, and even of Scala's technical merits.  This compared with other acquisitions editors that I talked to who didn't know who Martin Odersky was (and Programming in Scala was out at the time), kept referring to Scala as a "dynamic language", etc.

Steve impressed me and he closed me with "Apress is still true to Gary's vision of being an author's publisher."

I met Gary back in 2001 when he approached me to write a book about writing fast Java programs.  I failed to deliver even a first chapter, but Gary and I became friends.  Gary tapped me to be the technical editor of C# programming for Java developers.  I got to see the Apress process in action and it was a process that got quality books out quickly.  Gary founded Apress because he was frustrated with his own experiences as an author and his vision was an author friendly, high quality publishing house.

I have > 300 technical books on my bookshelves at home (I used to have more, but my wife made me purge my bookshelves back in 2003.)  About 30% are O'Reilly publications, 25% are Apress and there's a mix of other publishers.  I will strongly disagree with the assessment that Apress books are sleazy or in some way inferior to O'Reilly books.  While it's true that neither publisher is oriented to deep academic treatment of technical subjects.  It's also true that my favorite tech book of all time (Agile Development with Ruby on Rails which displaced Java in a Nutshell) was done by Pragmatic.  But on the whole, when I want an overview of a subject and some basic reference materials, Apress delivers the good just as well as any other mass market technical publisher.

In terms of my own experience producing a book with Apress, it was mostly excellent.  The team that Apress put around me was high quality, professional, and was excellent with communications.  I do not suffer fools.  I am not a patient person.  I bristle at working with people who are not excellent.  I was impressed with everyone on the Beginning Scala team.  The only person who introduced delays into the process was me... and the Apress folks worked around my dropping the ball.

If I every chose to write another book, I would talk to Apress and Steve Anglin first.

I also helped the Definitive Guide to Lift folks hook up with Apress.  They had a different experience with Apress.  There are some unique reasons for this (Apress was going through a transition at the time... I got into the process a little before Marius & Co. did and they got whip-sawed by the changes [e.g., moving from one standard contract to another] where I was sailing in front of the changes.)  But I take responsibility for the issues they faced and I intervened on their behalf a number of times, but it did not mitigate their situation, and for that I am deeply sorry.

So, reading your post, I feel compelled to disagree very, very strongly as both a consumer of Apress books and an author of an Apress book.

Thanks,

David
 

--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27725607.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Surf the harmonics

Folks,

I want to clarify one more thing.  Mike Loukides from O'Reilly worked with me on a Scala and/or Lift related book as well.  He was very professional and knowledgeable about the Scala market.  My negative comments about tech publishers and the Scala market do not extend to Mike or O'Reilly.

Thanks,

David

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:35 AM, David Pollak <feeder [dot] of [dot] the [dot] bears [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

Dave,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Dave Griffith <dave [dot] l [dot] griffith [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

Speaking as someone who buys a lot of technology books, is married to a
published author, and was indeed playing with writing a book on Scala, I
have to say that any day that you sever your relationship with Apress books
has to be considered a good day.   I've never picked up an Apress book that
I didn't think was cheap, sleazy, and lacking in essential detail.  I was
more than a little sad when I saw that the Lift people worked with them
(although it didn't stop be from buying an e-copy).   Try pitching to
Manning or Pragmatic.

I am not going to the substance of Greg's book, nor his relationship with Apress.

I chose Apress for Beginning Scala because I have the highest respect for Gary Cornell, the founder of Apress.  I spoke with virtually every tech publisher about a Lift or Scala book before choosing Apress as my publisher.  My editor, Steve Anglin, took the time to meet for coffee rather than a hurried 30 minute call.  Steve had a reasonable knowledge of Scala's background, adoption rate, and even of Scala's technical merits.  This compared with other acquisitions editors that I talked to who didn't know who Martin Odersky was (and Programming in Scala was out at the time), kept referring to Scala as a "dynamic language", etc.

Steve impressed me and he closed me with "Apress is still true to Gary's vision of being an author's publisher."

I met Gary back in 2001 when he approached me to write a book about writing fast Java programs.  I failed to deliver even a first chapter, but Gary and I became friends.  Gary tapped me to be the technical editor of C# programming for Java developers.  I got to see the Apress process in action and it was a process that got quality books out quickly.  Gary founded Apress because he was frustrated with his own experiences as an author and his vision was an author friendly, high quality publishing house.

I have > 300 technical books on my bookshelves at home (I used to have more, but my wife made me purge my bookshelves back in 2003.)  About 30% are O'Reilly publications, 25% are Apress and there's a mix of other publishers.  I will strongly disagree with the assessment that Apress books are sleazy or in some way inferior to O'Reilly books.  While it's true that neither publisher is oriented to deep academic treatment of technical subjects.  It's also true that my favorite tech book of all time (Agile Development with Ruby on Rails which displaced Java in a Nutshell) was done by Pragmatic.  But on the whole, when I want an overview of a subject and some basic reference materials, Apress delivers the good just as well as any other mass market technical publisher.

In terms of my own experience producing a book with Apress, it was mostly excellent.  The team that Apress put around me was high quality, professional, and was excellent with communications.  I do not suffer fools.  I am not a patient person.  I bristle at working with people who are not excellent.  I was impressed with everyone on the Beginning Scala team.  The only person who introduced delays into the process was me... and the Apress folks worked around my dropping the ball.

If I every chose to write another book, I would talk to Apress and Steve Anglin first.

I also helped the Definitive Guide to Lift folks hook up with Apress.  They had a different experience with Apress.  There are some unique reasons for this (Apress was going through a transition at the time... I got into the process a little before Marius & Co. did and they got whip-sawed by the changes [e.g., moving from one standard contract to another] where I was sailing in front of the changes.)  But I take responsibility for the issues they faced and I intervened on their behalf a number of times, but it did not mitigate their situation, and for that I am deeply sorry.

So, reading your post, I feel compelled to disagree very, very strongly as both a consumer of Apress books and an author of an Apress book.

Thanks,

David
 

--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27725607.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Surf the harmonics

--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Surf the harmonics

Greg, you musing of book stores of old reminds of the hours and hours I used
to spend in Computer Literacy in the Bay Area some fifteen years ago. Now I
don't even visit the "comp-sci" section of a bookstore.

I sincerely hope that your outing with Apress does not set your book back
too much, as I like many others have been anxiously awaiting its
publication. So much so that I will gladly pay you the price of a hard-cover
simply for a PDF version (although I would certainly much prefer a nice
bound printed version).

cheers and good writing!

-barry

Dear Scalarazzi,
Here's the short form of this email. i wanted to pass on some news about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have already been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and having a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
Here's the long form of this email. To my mind this is just a wrinkle because i will publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into the project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be clear, the book project is on github here. i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010 where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado) until the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns. Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always be more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved out hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand, doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on the book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time that i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had a stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below. 
However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers are to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract negotiation with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher -- just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We are not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the latter sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real understanding.
In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily basis. That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep way. They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and simplify what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper" into a subject. 
On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the years happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in a good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist in relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i write will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of interest, and that includes both practical and theoretical discussion, both topical and historical context.
So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see again.
Best wishes,
--greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duncan Parkes <duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com>
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Pro Scala
To: Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com>


Hi Greg

I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
Pro Scala.

The reasons  behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.

More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
write on anything else!

Duncan

--
Duncan Parkes  | Open Source Editor
Apress Inc
Phone:  +44 (0)1865 724879
Mobile:  +44 (0)7879 248791
Email:  duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
XMPP:  dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
The Expert's Voice™  www.apress.com



--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com

 So, i'm writing to you to say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We are not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the latter sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real understanding.

Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
>
>> More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
>> well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
>> don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
>> made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
>> the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.
>
> I'm by no means a publishing expert so don't know if this is just a
> lame excuse, but if the above assessment is correct, what does that
> mean for Scala as a language (if anything :-)
>

If we weren't on the tail end of a global recession that has hit the
publishing industry particularly hard, things would look different. Apress
might have already seen the "Scala boom" that they were hoping for, the way
Ruby books were flying off the shelves 5 years ago. I don't think the market
has been primed for any technical book category to take off in these recent
years and to see this as a reflection of Scala's potential would be myopic.
But then Apress certainly has access to a lot more information on the
subject; for all I know the F# books are selling like hotcakes.

In any case Scala is still leading edge (as opposed to mainstream) and a
deeper, theoretical work is another subset of that market. While most on
this mailing list want to be on the leading edge of the leading edge, the
publisher has to face the disastrous possibility that this list would be the
extent of their customer base. Whether the book ascends to classic status
and long-term profitability would depend on Scala becoming not necessarily
mainstream, but well established for 20 years. In practical terms you can't
fault them for assessing that the project is too risky under their current
model.

But I do fault them for failing to take on the challenge of creating a new
model that can support niche content that may eventually become classic.
Shrinking away from this challenge mirrors and overlaps with the way that
most traditional publishers, and Apress in particular, have failed to
participate in the transition of written works from paper to electronic
media. It's something that is happening with or without them, and while they
could define the future and have a greater share of its rewards they are
whistling and wishing it would go away, or be put off until after their
time.

If you look on Apress's own catalog for Beginning Scala, they're selling an
"eBook" which is a password-protected PDF. This is their most direct line to
the customer, it's almost entirely gravy, and yet you would have to be a
silly person like me to buy it because it's slightly more expensive than the
printed copy on Amazon and significantly more expensive than the Kindle
copy. The eBook customer gets no discount towards any other medium. Compare
that to Artima's distribution of Programming Scala: the PDF is cheapest
version available anywhere, and there is a significant discount for
purchasing it in combination with the printed book. Because there is no
password I can open it quickly and search the full text for things I'm
working on, which I often do. And perhaps just by chance, the aspect ratio
of the pages means you can fit one fully and clearly on a regularly sized
screen.

I'm not surprised, then, that Martin and Artima are happy with sales while
Apress is doubting that there is money in Scala. Artima is innovating while
Apress is clinging to the ways they have made money in the past. But I'm
glad that David has spoken up for them; Beginning Scala is the most polished
book on Scala that I've read. Apress has a wealth of traditional publishing
know-how and top-notch editors. I dearly want to see them and other
publishers bring their experience into newer media, which is why my reaction
to this news is disappointment more than anything else. They should be
looking for ways to produce Meredith's work iteratively and with low
overhead, leveraging free proofreading by the rest of us on github, and
conserving their professional editors' time for the tougher calls. They
could carry out electronic-only runs for months or years, as long as it
takes the market to develop, to spread out investments and reduce the risk.

To reject leading edge material may be the safest short term bet for their
struggling industry, but it's a long term ticket to irrelevance.

Nathan

Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote:
>
>> More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
>> well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
>> don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
>> made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
>> the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.
>
> I'm by no means a publishing expert so don't know if this is just a
> lame excuse, but if the above assessment is correct, what does that
> mean for Scala as a language (if anything :-)
>

If we weren't on the tail end of a global recession that has hit the
publishing industry particularly hard, things would look different. Apress
might have already seen the "Scala boom" that they were hoping for, the way
Ruby books were flying off the shelves 5 years ago. I don't think the market
has been primed for any technical book category to take off in these recent
years and to see this as a reflection of Scala's potential would be myopic.
But then Apress certainly has access to a lot more information on the
subject; for all I know the F# books are selling like hotcakes.

In any case Scala is still leading edge (as opposed to mainstream) and a
deeper, theoretical work is another subset of that market. While most on
this mailing list want to be on the leading edge of the leading edge, the
publisher has to face the disastrous possibility that this list would be the
extent of their customer base. Whether the book ascends to classic status
and long-term profitability would depend on Scala becoming not necessarily
mainstream, but well established for 20 years. In practical terms you can't
fault them for assessing that the project is too risky under their current
model.

But I do fault them for failing to take on the challenge of creating a new
model that can support niche content that may eventually become classic.
Shrinking away from this challenge mirrors and overlaps with the way that
most traditional publishers, and Apress in particular, have failed to
participate in the transition of written works from paper to electronic
media. It's something that is happening with or without them, and while they
could define the future and have a greater share of its rewards they are
whistling and wishing it would go away, or be put off until after their
time.

If you look on Apress's own catalog for Beginning Scala, they're selling an
"eBook" which is a password-protected PDF. This is their most direct line to
the customer, it's almost entirely gravy, and yet you would have to be a
silly person like me to buy it because it's slightly more expensive than the
printed copy on Amazon and significantly more expensive than the Kindle
copy. The eBook customer gets no discount towards any other medium. Compare
that to Artima's distribution of Programming Scala: the PDF is cheapest
version available anywhere, and there is a significant discount for
purchasing it in combination with the printed book. Because there is no
password I can open it quickly and search the full text for things I'm
working on, which I often do. And perhaps just by chance, the aspect ratio
of the pages means you can fit one fully and clearly on a regularly sized
screen.

I'm not surprised, then, that Martin and Artima are happy with sales while
Apress is doubting that there is money in Scala.

Artima is innovating while
Apress is clinging to the ways they have made money in the past. But I'm
glad that David has spoken up for them; Beginning Scala is the most polished
book on Scala that I've read. Apress has a wealth of traditional publishing
know-how and top-notch editors. I dearly want to see them and other
publishers bring their experience into newer media, which is why my reaction
to this news is disappointment more than anything else. They should be
looking for ways to produce Meredith's work iteratively and with low
overhead, leveraging free proofreading by the rest of us on github, and
conserving their professional editors' time for the tougher calls. They
could carry out electronic-only runs for months or years, as long as it
takes the market to develop, to spread out investments and reduce the risk.

To reject leading edge material may be the safest short term bet for their
struggling industry, but it's a long term ticket to irrelevance.

Nathan
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27729770.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Meredith,

Please don't give up on this book: the tech world can certainly benefit from
an in-depth Scala book. A-Press may not realize that JVM developers are
eagerly looking towards alternative to Java. Scala is one of these
alternatives and soon developers will be in need for advanced books on the
subject. Your book will out there exactly when it will be most needed.

And, btw, as an author for Manning, I can only warmly recommend this
publisher. They're a pleasure to work with, at all levels, from development
to production.

Cheers,
D.

Meredith Gregory wrote:
>
> Dear Scalarazzi,
>
> *Here's the short form of this email.* i wanted to pass on some news about
> the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see the email
> below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two
> principal
> reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a "deeper" book on
> the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with some
> "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email below for
> a
> point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i have
> already
> been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest, and
> having
> a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication venue.
>
> *Here's the long form of this email.* To my mind this is just a wrinkle
> because i *will* publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several
> hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into
> the
> project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be
> clear, the book project is on github
> here.
> i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar 2010
> where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado)
> until
> the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact, all
> comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an
> inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
>
> That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress' concerns.
> Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could always
> be
> more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that
> this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing it
> for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8 release
> delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a
> domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved
> out
> hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new
> window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand,
> doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on
> the
> book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time
> that
> i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and had
> a
> stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below.
>
> However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important reason
> for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my
> experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've got
> an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader
> Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry expressing
> not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers
> are
> to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are
> enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract
> negotiation
> with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process to
> shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to
> dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why i
> was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another publisher
> --
> just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you to
> say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We
> are
> not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or
> historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the
> latter
> sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real
> understanding.
>
> In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around. They
> have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily
> basis.
> That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take
> pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep
> way.
> They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and *
> simplify* what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers
> understand that there is a market for content that goes a little "deeper"
> into a subject.
>
> On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the
> years
> happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my family
> visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer science
> section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my brain, in
> a
> good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was their content was
> lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure and
> Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist
> in
> relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i have
> watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of ephemera
> that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its
> dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i
> write
> will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or, more
> importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe that
> people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic of
> interest, and that includes both practical *and* theoretical discussion,
> both topical *and* historical context.
>
> So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer
> science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a treasure
> trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We have
> to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to see
> again.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --greg
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Duncan Parkes
> Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
> Subject: Pro Scala
> To: Meredith Gregory
>
>
> Hi Greg
>
> I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
> Pro Scala.
>
> The reasons behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
> just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
> are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.
>
> More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
> well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
> don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
> made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
> the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.
>
> I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
> ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
> write on anything else!
>
> Duncan
>
> --
> Duncan Parkes | Open Source Editor
> Apress Inc
> Phone: +44 (0)1865 724879
> Mobile: +44 (0)7879 248791
> Email: duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
> XMPP: dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
> The Expert's Voice™ www.apress.com
>
>
>

Part of the reason that the scala market is small is that Scala seems to be a language for computer scientists. The times that I have been among groups of Scala enthusiasts, it has seemed to me that computer scientists are highly overrepresented in the scala community with respect to their numbers in comparison to professional programmers in general. I love scala for features like first-class functions, closures, comprehensions now even continuations. These are things that most professional programmers are unaware of and don't know what to do with.

I'd love to see a more advanced book that would show me the finer points of how to use scala that I have not yet discovered. I suspect that I and others like me are a small enough market that a book publisher would get a better return on their investment by putting money into book for larger markets.

So the problem as I see it is not the shortage of sophisticated Scala programmers. The problem is the shortage of unsophisticated Scala programmers. These are the people who will evolve into a market for more sophisticated Scala books.

The long term solution is for somebody to do something that either motivates more people to learn Scala and makes it easier to learn scala without having to feel that they need to understand a whole lot of theory. The right books or on-line tutorials will help make Scala more accessible. Motivating people will require just the right circumstances and a lot of luck.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeppe Nejsum Madsen [mailto:jeppe [at] ingolfs [dot] dk]
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 5:43 AM
To: Meredith Gregory; scala [at] listes [dot] epfl [dot] ch
Subject: Re: [scala] Fwd: Pro Scala

Greg,

I think you're spot on with your bookstore analysis and I for one
would probably buy the book when it comes out.

That being said, I'm curious that no one commented on the following paragraph:

> More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
> well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
> don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
> made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
> the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.

I'm by no means a publishing expert so don't know if this is just a
lame excuse, but if the above assessment is correct, what does that
mean for Scala as a language (if anything :-)

/Jeppe

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

On Saturday 27 February 2010 16:49:04 Shashank Tiwari wrote:
> Firstly, you need to recognize
> that technical book publishing on an average is a very small margin
> business, it ain't investment banking or even consulting.

Depends what you average over. If units sold then yes, cheap books sell more
copies. If profit then no, expensive books earn far more profit. Most of the
profit in technical books comes from expensive books.

On Saturday 27 February 2010 18:05:14 n8han wrote:
> If we weren't on the tail end of a global recession that has hit the
> publishing industry particularly hard,

Only trade publishers like APress. Specialist publishers are doing better than
ever. For example, our profit from books increased 35% from 2008 to 2009 and
50% from 2009 to 2010.

> But then Apress certainly has access to a lot more information on
> the subject; for all I know the F# books are selling like hotcakes.

No way. F# for Scientists only shipped ~3k copies and already died after only
18 months. Even F#'s newest and cheapest book "Programming F#" by Chris Smith
has an Amazon sales rank of 42k vs 14k for Martin Odersky's Scala book.

> But I do fault them for failing to take on the challenge of creating a new
> model that can support niche content that may eventually become classic.

Just publish yourself and forget about trade publishers.

> Shrinking away from this challenge mirrors and overlaps with the way that
> most traditional publishers, and Apress in particular, have failed to
> participate in the transition of written works from paper to electronic
> media.

I'm not sure what you mean by "participate in the transition". We've tried
selling both paper and electronic form. Paper form is far more profitable. We
want to focus on paper form but we've watched as people have scanned our
books and illegally put them on the web for free, infringing our copyright
and destroying our livelihoods. Is that "participating"?

> It's something that is happening with or without them,

That doesn't mean we want to participate!

> and while they could define the future and have a greater share of its
> rewards they are whistling and wishing it would go away, or be put off until
> after their time.

Rather than whistle and wish the problem would go away we noted that the
people who steal our content are poor (they were the people we were kindly
giving discounts to!) and have responded by increasing our prices and
removing all discounts. So far so good.

> In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper"
> book.

Speaking of deeper Scala books, scalaz needs its own book.

I suppose the subscribers of the scala@ mailing list are not exactly a
representative sample of the general programming population, but Pro
Scala will stay on my wish list.

- Stephen

We know. We can't wait to do this for you and others. I am on the
phone at this very moment (on a Sunday?) arranging for finance for a
required medical procedure in another country. This country is a
disgrace. When I get back (next week) I will write you a kick-arse
book. That's if I can afford to continue eating. Hang in there. It's
coming.

Tony Morris
http://tmorris.net/

On Feb 28, 2010, at 14:17, Stephen Haberman
wrote:

>
>> In my experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper"
>> book.
>
> Speaking of deeper Scala books, scalaz needs its own book.
>
> I suppose the subscribers of the scala@ mailing list are not exactly a
> representative sample of the general programming population, but Pro
> Scala will stay on my wish list.
>
> - Stephen
>

Hi Greg,

+1 on buying the book, I just read your book draft and I think it's really
worth going on writing and publishing it. I especially feel that this is
useful to bring up book which touch on "design" with Scala and not only
"program" with Scala.

Eric.

Meredith Gregory wrote:
>
> Dear Marius,
>
> Thanks for your advice and support!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --greg
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Marius Danciu
> wrote:
>
>> Based on our experience with Apress with Lift book I strongly recommend
>> choosing a different publisher. It has been a huge disappointment
>> starting
>> from the contract signing, title renaming, leaving out the appendixes,
>> payment problems etc.
>>
>> Yes I WANT your book but I do believe you'd be better with other
>> publisher.
>>
>>
>> Br's,
>> Marius
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Meredith Gregory <
>> lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Scalarazzi,
>>>
>>> *Here's the short form of this email.* i wanted to pass on some news
>>> about the book, and make a request. APress let me know this week (see
>>> the
>>> email below) that they've decided to cancel the project. They cited two
>>> principal reasons: delays on the draft and the sales potential of a
>>> "deeper"
>>> book on the subject. Basically, if you want to see a book like this with
>>> some "deeper" content, drop an email to APress (again, see the email
>>> below
>>> for a point of contact) and cc me. Even if APress doesn't respond, i
>>> have
>>> already been in touch with another publisher who has expressed interest,
>>> and
>>> having a show of support will be invaluable in changing publication
>>> venue.
>>>
>>> *Here's the long form of this email.* To my mind this is just a wrinkle
>>> because i *will* publish this book by hook or by crook. i'm now several
>>> hundred hours into the project and my technical review team is also into
>>> the
>>> project by dozens of hours. i'm not just going to waste that time. To be
>>> clear, the book project is on github
>>> here.
>>> i'm committed to 3 pages per day (except between 19 Mar 2010 - 28 Mar
>>> 2010
>>> where i will be on a Guitar Craft course and completely incommunicado)
>>> until
>>> the first draft is complete. You all can watch the progress. In fact,
>>> all
>>> comments are welcome! Just remember, right now the draft is mostly an
>>> inchoate mess -- but rest assured that there is a method to the madness!
>>>
>>> That said, i feel compelled to write a word or two about APress'
>>> concerns.
>>> Firstly, i understand their concerns about the delays, and i could
>>> always be
>>> more on top of things than i am. However, i explained at the outset that
>>> this book critically depended on Scala 2.8 features to justify writing
>>> it
>>> for Scala -- than say, Haskell. i let them know that the Scala 2.8
>>> release
>>> delays were adding a significant wrinkle to my schedule -- including a
>>> domino effect that not having a stable release at the time i had carved
>>> out
>>> hours to work on the book meant i had to scramble around to make a new
>>> window in which to write. APress, as some of you may know first hand,
>>> doesn't actually monetize publishing through them in a way that time on
>>> the
>>> book can be considered billable hours. In fact, it was just at the time
>>> that
>>> i secured another window in which to write in a focused manner -- and
>>> had a
>>> stable enough version of Scala 2.8 -- that APress sent the email below.
>>>
>>> However, it's the second and -- in APress' words -- more important
>>> reason
>>> for canceling the project that i'm writing to the community. In my
>>> experience there is a broad and deep interest in a "deeper" book. i've
>>> got
>>> an in-box full of encouraging email from the Lift community, the broader
>>> Scala community and many friends and colleagues in the industry
>>> expressing
>>> not just interest but enthusiasm for the book. If my technical reviewers
>>> are
>>> to be believed, they are putting in the time they have because they are
>>> enjoying what they are reading. Frankly, throughout the contract
>>> negotiation
>>> with APress i was dismayed that it seemed baked into their very process
>>> to
>>> shy away from content that had any hint of intellectual depth. We had to
>>> dance around this issue several times. (Which was part of the reason why
>>> i
>>> was careful to make sure i had a side conversation with another
>>> publisher --
>>> just in case something like this might happen.) So, i'm writing to you
>>> to
>>> say that we should tell our publishers that we want "deeper" content. We
>>> are
>>> not shy of mixing pragmatic information with theoretical background or
>>> historical context. It might even turn out -- G-d forbid -- that the
>>> latter
>>> sort of information is actually pragmatic and facilitates real
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>> In point of fact programmers are some of the smartest people around.
>>> They
>>> have to be to deal with the sorts of complexity they face on a daily
>>> basis.
>>> That generally means they are not just broad in their interests but take
>>> pleasure in understanding things -- especially technology -- in a deep
>>> way.
>>> They know that it's that deeper understanding that helps organize and *
>>> simplify* what they do. i really feel that we need to help publishers
>>> understand that there is a market for content that goes a little
>>> "deeper"
>>> into a subject.
>>>
>>> On a personal level, it has saddened me no end what i watched over the
>>> years happen to the computer science section of the bookstore. When my
>>> family visited a bookstore when i was a kid i would rush to the computer
>>> science section because it was full of "deep" books, books that hurt my
>>> brain, in a good way. Part of what made them so "deep" was that was
>>> their
>>> content was lasting, ideas as might be found in books like The Structure
>>> and
>>> Interpretation of Computer Programs that were profound enough to persist
>>> in
>>> relevance beyond the latest release of Windows. In the last decade i
>>> have
>>> watched the computer science shelf become overrun with a kind of
>>> ephemera
>>> that might best be served up on line rather than committing trees to its
>>> dissemination. Certainly, i'm not the person to say whether anything i
>>> write
>>> will be of lasting impact, but that shouldn't be reason for me -- or,
>>> more
>>> importantly, anyone else -- not to strive to do so! i firmly believe
>>> that
>>> people want the highest quality information they can have about a topic
>>> of
>>> interest, and that includes both practical *and* theoretical discussion,
>>> both topical *and* historical context.
>>>
>>> So, i'm writing to you on behalf of that older version of the computer
>>> science bookshelf -- the one we used to rush to because it was a
>>> treasure
>>> trove of deep ideas, a source of genuine intellectual nourishment. We
>>> have
>>> to let publishers know that that's the sort of bookshelf we'd like to
>>> see
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> --greg
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Duncan Parkes
>>> Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM
>>> Subject: Pro Scala
>>> To: Meredith Gregory
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Greg
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I come today bearing bad news: Apress has decided to cancel
>>> Pro Scala.
>>>
>>> The reasons behind this are several. Firstly, we've now missed not
>>> just the three chapter date, but the whole first draft date. Things
>>> are just not going fast enough for the way Apress operates.
>>>
>>> More importantly though, Scala books in general are just not selling
>>> well. The numbers for the other Scala books that are out there just
>>> don't justify writing a deeper book of this sort. I still think it
>>> made sense to start this book when we did, but now, several months on,
>>> the Scala publishing situation just isn't strong enough.
>>>
>>> I've enjoyed talking to you about your ideas and I'm sorry we can't go
>>> ahead with this book. Please get in touch in future if you want to
>>> write on anything else!
>>>
>>> Duncan
>>>
>>> --
>>> Duncan Parkes | Open Source Editor
>>> Apress Inc
>>> Phone: +44 (0)1865 724879
>>> Mobile: +44 (0)7879 248791
>>> Email: duncan [dot] parkes [at] apress [dot] com
>>> XMPP: dparkes [at] jabber [dot] org
>>> The Expert's Voice™ www.apress.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> L.G. Meredith
>>> Managing Partner
>>> Biosimilarity LLC
>>> 1219 NW 83rd St
>>> Seattle, WA 98117
>>>
>>> +1 206.650.3740
>>>
>>> http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I truly hope this will not discourage you from finishing the book. I read the
draft, and it looks very promising.

I truly hope this will not discourage you from finishing the book. I read the
draft, and it looks very promising.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27738639.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I definitely want this book and think it would be immensely useful
because it's harder to grasp the finer points and idioms on your own
than language basics.

I suggest that if finding a publisher takes too long you should
arrange some sort of donation model. I for one am willing to donate
for an ebook I like just as much as if it's bought from a publisher.

On a side note- didn't Apress require that authors use Word? I would
always prefer a text-based representation, so I think it's great that
you're using LaTeX for the drafts. As far as I know, O'Reilly let Dean
and Al3x create "Programming in Scala" in Asciidoc, which is also a
format which works great for books IMHO.

Good luck,
Vassil

Hi Greg.

I haven't been so excited about a book outline, as I was when I saw
yours, in years.
Your book is so much needed.
I'd chop off my left hand to be able to see things with the depth that
you do, but reading your book seems easier.
Please continue working on it. I'd buy 10 if it would help.

/Jonas

On 1 March 2010 09:15, Vassil Dichev wrote:
> I definitely want this book and think it would be immensely useful
> because it's harder to grasp the finer points and idioms on your own
> than language basics.
>
> I suggest that if finding a publisher takes too long you should
> arrange some sort of donation model. I for one am willing to donate
> for an ebook I like just as much as if it's bought from a publisher.
>
> On a side note- didn't Apress require that authors use Word? I would
> always prefer a text-based representation, so I think it's great that
> you're using LaTeX for the drafts. As far as I know, O'Reilly let Dean
> and Al3x create "Programming in Scala" in Asciidoc, which is also a
> format which works great for books IMHO.
>
> Good luck,
> Vassil
>

I definitely want this book and think it would be immensely useful
because it's harder to grasp the finer points and idioms on your own
than language basics.

I suggest that if finding a publisher takes too long you should
arrange some sort of donation model. I for one am willing to donate
for an ebook I like just as much as if it's bought from a publisher.

On a side note- didn't Apress require that authors use Word? I would
always prefer a text-based representation, so I think it's great that
you're using LaTeX for the drafts. As far as I know, O'Reilly let Dean
and Al3x create "Programming in Scala" in Asciidoc, which is also a
format which works great for books IMHO.

Good luck,
Vassil

O'Reilly wanted either Docbook or Word documents. We used Asciidoc to generate Docbook for "Programming Scala".

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Vassil Dichev <vdichev [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

I definitely want this book and think it would be immensely useful
because it's harder to grasp the finer points and idioms on your own
than language basics.

I suggest that if finding a publisher takes too long you should
arrange some sort of donation model. I for one am willing to donate
for an ebook I like just as much as if it's bought from a publisher.

On a side note- didn't Apress require that authors use Word? I would
always prefer a text-based representation, so I think it's great that
you're using LaTeX for the drafts. As far as I know, O'Reilly let Dean
and Al3x create "Programming in Scala" in Asciidoc, which is also a
format which works great for books IMHO.

Good luck,
Vassil

--
Dean Wampler
coauthor of "Programming Scala" (O'Reilly)
-  http://programmingscala.com

twitter: @deanwampler, @chicagoscala
blog: http://blog.polyglotprogramming.com
Chicago-Area Scala Enthusiasts (CASE):
-  http://groups.google.com/group/chicagoscala
-  http://www.meetup.com/chicagoscala/ (Meetings)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/deanwampler
http://www.polyglotprogramming.com
http://aquarium.rubyforge.org
http://www.contract4j.org

Hi Greg.

I haven't been so excited about a book outline, as I was when I saw
yours, in years.
Your book is so much needed.
I'd chop off my left hand to be able to see things with the depth that
you do, but reading your book seems easier.
Please continue working on it. I'd buy 10 if it would help.

/Jonas

On 1 March 2010 09:15, Vassil Dichev <vdichev [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:
> I definitely want this book and think it would be immensely useful
> because it's harder to grasp the finer points and idioms on your own
> than language basics.
>
> I suggest that if finding a publisher takes too long you should
> arrange some sort of donation model. I for one am willing to donate
> for an ebook I like just as much as if it's bought from a publisher.
>
> On a side note- didn't Apress require that authors use Word? I would
> always prefer a text-based representation, so I think it's great that
> you're using LaTeX for the drafts. As far as I know, O'Reilly let Dean
> and Al3x create "Programming in Scala" in Asciidoc, which is also a
> format which works great for books IMHO.
>
> Good luck,
> Vassil
>



--
Jonas Bonér

twitter: @jboner
blog:    http://jonasboner.com
work:   http://scalablesolutions.se
code:   http://github.com/jboner
code:   http://akkasource.org
also:    http://letitcrash.com

Meredith Gregory writes:

[...]

> Many thanks for your kind words, and the wishes of support from
> everyone. It's really helpful, because the 3 pages a day thing is
> *killing me*! ;-) Another publisher has contacted me, unprompted. i'm
> hoping to have the publication venue resolved in the not too distant
> future. But, even if nothing comes through, the book will be
> published.

Fortunately nowadays there's things like lulu, if no publisher's
willing.

[...]

On 03/02/2010 01:45 PM, Meredith Gregory wrote:
> Dear Dean,
>
> That's good to know. Back in the day when i worked for MCC i used
> Framemaker. When i went off to Imperial i transitioned to LaTex for
> technical writing and never looked back. In 2006 i was on the hook to
> give a talk on knots at the Oxford Quantum Computing and Logic Workshop,
> and was making slides in Office for Mac. The thing had a bug in the
> auto-save feature that was causing it to spin for 5 mins at a time on a
> 3-4 min basis. Right then and there i redid all my slides in the Beamer
> LaTex package and never again troubled myself with PPT. i guess i'm a
> luddite, but it would take some pretty wild horses to drag me off LaTex,
> now.

Yeah, we wrote our open-source version of our book in LaTeX (well, LyX)
and I wish we had pressed APress to keep that format instead of
converting to Word. Two words: Word SUCKS. The APress style sheet ain't
so hot, either :(. For a more formal analysis, see:

http://riteofcoding.blogspot.com/2009/10/amateur-tools-for-professional-...

Otherwise, I'm really, really excited to see this book, Greg!

Derek

This is very irritating - Pro Scala sounds like exactly the book I was
looking for.

This is very irritating - Pro Scala sounds like exactly the book I was
looking for.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27828752.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dear Jonathan,
Despair not! The book is still being written. i'm in conversation with two different publishers and even if both conversations fall through, i will publish this book! If you would like, please find here the git repo where the first draft is being developed. i keep the most recent pdf here. Comments are most welcome! i am reading everyone's comments and working through all the excellent editorial feedback folks have been giving me (though very slowly).
Best wishes,
--greg

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:38 PM, jonathan mawson <umptious [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

This is very irritating - Pro Scala sounds like exactly the book I was
looking for.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27828752.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com

hey, this

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Meredith Gregory
wrote:
> Yes! i whole-heartedly encourage this method of working! BTW, Alex Cruise
> suggested one of the creative commons licenses. i'm going to put that in
> place presently so that folks can use what they want of the content within a
> clearly spelled out licensing framework.

warms my heart, thank you for sharing you insights so kindly.

sincerely.

I forked Greg's repository so I can give him proof reading changes as I find them and I encourage others who are willing to help proofread to do that as well.

Bill

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Meredith Gregory <lgreg [dot] meredith [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

Dear Jonathan,
Despair not! The book is still being written. i'm in conversation with two different publishers and even if both conversations fall through, i will publish this book! If you would like, please find here the git repo where the first draft is being developed. i keep the most recent pdf here. Comments are most welcome! i am reading everyone's comments and working through all the excellent editorial feedback folks have been giving me (though very slowly).
Best wishes,
--greg

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:38 PM, jonathan mawson <umptious [at] gmail [dot] com> wrote:

This is very irritating - Pro Scala sounds like exactly the book I was
looking for.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-scala--Fwd%3A-Pro-Scala-tp27721953p27828752.html
Sent from the Scala mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com