Talk:Reviewers:MartinRinardNotes

From APIDesign

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: Re. '''target audience''': it should have been explained in the preface, everyone. However I do understand your comment and I am glad that you represent this point of view. That is exactly...)
Current revision (21:42, 13 June 2008) (edit) (undo)
 
(One intermediate revision not shown.)
Line 2: Line 2:
Re. '''a lot of examples''': I will do that, but not in the beginning. Examples without explanation are useless, although common, especially in empiricism/pragmatism. Rationalists need theory first. But there is the intro to the theory part that says, you can skip it, if you feel bored - I do not think I can do much more.
Re. '''a lot of examples''': I will do that, but not in the beginning. Examples without explanation are useless, although common, especially in empiricism/pragmatism. Rationalists need theory first. But there is the intro to the theory part that says, you can skip it, if you feel bored - I do not think I can do much more.
 +
 +
I've addressed this in '''2b70ddb6c1d2'''
 +
Re. '''comfort zone vs. treatise''' - true, but I am not sure I'll be able to change that completely.
Re. '''comfort zone vs. treatise''' - true, but I am not sure I'll be able to change that completely.

Current revision

Re. target audience: it should have been explained in the preface, everyone. However I do understand your comment and I am glad that you represent this point of view. That is exactly why I asked you to be the reviewer ;-)

Re. a lot of examples: I will do that, but not in the beginning. Examples without explanation are useless, although common, especially in empiricism/pragmatism. Rationalists need theory first. But there is the intro to the theory part that says, you can skip it, if you feel bored - I do not think I can do much more.

I've addressed this in 2b70ddb6c1d2


Re. comfort zone vs. treatise - true, but I am not sure I'll be able to change that completely.

Personal tools
buy