5 ms·
There's absolutely nothing of sustinence in this book review - they give the book 5/5 despite having not actually read it, and the only comments on the individu
by maccard 4y ago
There's absolutely nothing of sustinence in this book review - they give the book 5/5 despite having not actually read it, and the only comments on the individual topics are on the length of the chapters. This is really a terrible review.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Koshkin 4y ago'substance'
- bombcar 4y agoSustenance could also work - as a review it’s like a meal made of cellulose. Lots of action but no energy.
- Sakos 4y agoI'm not sure if you stopped too early or if you have a grudge against the author or what. > I’m still reading this book, and I haven’t read all the pages (1300+ pages!). Yet, I’ve seen all of chapters, read half of them and picked those related to my recent work, tasks, or blog posts. I’m impressed with the level of detail and the quality the authors put into this material. The book has become my primary “reference” for those C++11/14 parts. With further detail below that.
- ncmncm 4y agoThe review tells you what you need to know: this is not a good book.
- SuperV1234 4y agoThe review states the exact opposite.
- ncmncm 4y agoVery unconvincingly.
- avgcorrection 4y agoThis is an elementary school book analysis-level review.
- maccard 4y agoIndeed, that's a much better way of phrasing it.
- SuperV1234 4y agoThis comment seems a bit intellectually dishonest to me -- as an author the review was really useful to pinpoint improvements for future editions. The author of the review also clearly states that the book was read and provides an unique opinion and perspective over what the book offers. It is also completely false that the review only comments on the length of the chapters. Have we read the same review? Or did you stop before "My Views" and the pros/cons? :)