Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] Complaints about Spidering Hacks book

by Wassercrats
on Nov 17, 2003 at 11:34 UTC ( #307629=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Re: [OT] Complaints about Spidering Hacks book
in thread [OT] Complaints about Spidering Hacks book

Yeah, I might email O'Reilly about that. I think I'll mention the one especially long script that I'd like and just suggest a few ways they could provide the code to customers without making them type it in. Maybe they'll decide to email me at least that one script. I don't think O'Reilly should give library customers the code unless a CD comes with the book.

You're right about staring at the scraper. It looks like a fish.

Ahh.... I see Where do I post X now! I thought I'd seen it before. Those section descriptions should be under the section names when you go to the section. (Yes, I know that goes in PerlMonks Discussion.)


Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] Complaints about Spidering Hacks book
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] Complaints about Spidering Hacks book
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Nov 18, 2003 at 01:02 UTC

    If you do e-mail O'Reilly, odds are good you'll talk to someone whose job it is to respond to customers during work hours, not an editor who happened to run across this meditation after work!

    The Hacks series is a completely different product line from the Animal books, as are the Head First and Missing Manual series. Besides that, the first version of Unix Power Tools (the spiritual successor to Linux Server Hacks) had a power drill.

    I will bring up the point of downloadable code, though.

      Oh... I guess I should refine my bitching, considering an O'Reilly editor is reading this! The first thing that crosses my mind on how to provide downloadable code is to attach a shrink wrapped card containing a unique code to the inside back cover of the book. When the code is typed in at O'Reilly's website, the scripts that aren't already available in the sample sections could be downloaded, all at once. The code will then become invalid.

      But even if I was only able to get the code by mailing O'Reilly proof of purchase and a dollar or two, I would.

        By the way, the animal thing would start getting old, and you would start running out of good animals eventually. I'd like an animal on my book, but O'Reilly did the right thing with the covers.

        That sounds like a lot of work. I'd rather just put all of the code examples online. I did that for my first book and I plan to do that for my subsequent books. (My most recent book had no code, as it turns out.)

        You should also consider that at least two contributors to Spidering Hacks are also Perl Monks, although one, sadly, is recently deceased. The longer you stay here the more "Monk names" you'll match up with "Real Names" on the cover of O'Reilly books. Perl Monks and O'Reilly books are my personal favorite resources and usually where a reliable answer to just about any Perl question can be found.
        --

        @a = ("a".."z"," ","-","\n");foreach $b ( 12,0,17,10,24,12,14,14,13,26,8,18,26,0,26, 22,0,13,13,0,27,1,4,26,15,4,17,11,26,7,0, 2,10,4,17) {print $a[$b]};print $a[28];
Re: [OT] Complaints about Spidering Hacks book
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jan 22, 2004 at 10:25 UTC
    Yeah, I might email O'Reilly about that.
    Well, did you? How did they respond?

    Abigail

      Nope, I never asked them for the code. I was hoping chromatic would be able to get the code published on O'Reilly's website, but I haven't checked for a while. I haven't even opened the book since I started this thread.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://307629]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (14)
As of 2014-07-23 20:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (152 votes), past polls