Monday, July 13, 2009
Should you happen to have an interest in the C++0x training course I'm finishing up, feel free to visit its web page.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Since I started writing Alertbox in 1995, it's been a recurring theme to design for the medium. In the beginning, this meant "don't design your website like a glossy brochure." (I.e., print design is different than online design.)I fully agree with the part about designing for the medium, but I don't think Kindle is a medium in and of itself. There are a number of other dedicated book-reading devices, and my guess is that they are similar enough to one another that it's possible to design for the entire category. As an author, I don't want to try to create content on a device-by-device basis, I want to do it on a device-category-by-device-category basis. That may not yield optimal content presentation for every device, but it should yield acceptable presentation for devices I know about as well as devices I don't know about (e.g., that are introduced after I've finished writing). Yes, my software development roots keep showing: I approach cross-platform content authoring the same way I approach cross-platform software authoring.
For Kindle, it's certainly unacceptable to simply repurpose print content. But you can't repurpose website content, either. For good Kindle usability, you have to design for the Kindle. Write Kindle-specific headlines and create Kindle-specific article structures.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Alas, nearly every authoring system I know goes out of its way to make it easy to italicize text. WYSIWYG systems (at least those on Windows) define ^I to mean "italicize the selection", HTML offers \i, LaTeX has \it, reST offers *text*, etc. It's a similar situation for making things bold or underlined, both of which are also physical styles and should thus be avoided.
From what I can tell, there is no notion of "italicization" in the DocBook or DTBook schemas, and the screen shot for oXygen's XML Author for DocBook shows a toolbar button only to emphasize text, not italicize it. Score one for XML.
I've decided to use FrameMaker, not XML, so I'll be working in WYSIWYGland. I'm still committed to using only logical styles, and although I'm a pretty disciplined guy, I have no illusions that I'm perfect. If I don't find a way to keep myself from doing it, I know I'll occasionally type ^I (or ^B for bold) in FrameMaker without thinking about it. I won't notice my formatting faux pas (note use of italics to indicate a foreign expression, which is quite different from using them to emphasize something or to indicate a book title), because everything in my WYSIWYG world will look right. The situation would likely be the same in an italics-supporting markup-based world such as LaTeX or reST.
Fortunately, FrameMaker's keyboard and menu command set is determined by configuration files, so, with some guidance from the kind folks at the FrameMaker forum, I was able to excise keyboard and toolbar commands for italics, bold, and underlining. Now, should I foolishly try to italicize something via the errant ^I, nothing happens.
Two of my books -- Effective C++ and Effective STL -- are now available for Amazon's Kindle. I haven't seen these editions myself, so I can't tell you anything about them. Since I don't have a Kindle, this is unlikely to change anytime soon. If you try these editions, please let me know what you think of them. You'll find links to the Kindle editions of these books at http://www.aristeia.com/books.html .Shortly thereafter, Herb Sutter wrote me as follows:
I downloaded a Kindle sample of one of your books, which included enough to see some source code examples. In general it looks good, except for one thing: Source code is rendered badly. The text is clear, but the two problems are:Herb included a couple of quick-and-dirty screen shots, including this one:
a) Line length (though not as bad as narrow magazine columns & what iPhone would be like): Medium-long lines have bad wraps that make the examples a pain to read. But line length is probably going to be an issue for all small-form-factor devices.
b) Proportional font => comments don’t line up. It’s possible to get fixed-width fonts on Kindle but you have to try hard and use the <pre> tag explicitly. For more, see Larry O’Brien’s recent blog note about targeting technical docs to Kindle, including the comment about getting Greek text to work by explicitly using UTF-8.
The code examples, which I'd carefully formatted for the font and page width of the printed book, were apparently moved to the Kindle without any reformatting consideration, so the Kindle tossed in new line breaks wherever it felt they were needed. The result, unsurprisingly, is awful. This is consistent with my belief that the chances of writing a book with anything beyond straight prose that looks good on multiple devices is close to zero. The more special formatting that's needed (e.g., for recipes, poetry, code, etc.), the more care an author (and his or her publisher) is likely to need to take.
Bearing in mind that my recent C++ books use two ink colors (black plus a red highlight color for places where I want to focus readers' attention), Herb wrote:
Some text that I think you had as red or some other color looks gray on Kindle. It’s still readable, if a little less distinct. Probably the best that can be done given that Kindle 1 only has a 4-level gray scale. It’d probably look slightly better on a Kindle 2 with a 16-level gray scale, but only slightly since you do have to make it gray enough to be distinct and so I’d imagine you couldn’t just use levels 14 and 16 for example.I discussed the problem of writing for devices with different capabilities such as color in an earlier post.
If you’re serious about thinking of targeting devices like Kindle or iPhone, it’s worth having one.I replied:
Practically speaking, I'm sure you're right, but this is the kind of thing I'd like my publisher to address for me. I want to focus on content, not device-dependent presentation issues. One of the things my publisher should do is investigate the landscape of output devices, then give me advice on what I should or should not do in my ms to keep it cross-platform-friendly.I thank Herb for his mini-review of my books on Kindle and for his permission to use his material here.
Monday, March 2, 2009
It's an interesting question to try to define IO. Technically, IO is probably anything that communicates with something off-chip, so accessing main memory can be considered IO, although I don't plan to treat it that way. My current plan is to focus on disk and network issues, but even there things are beginning to get fuzzy, because solid state drives use a traditional disk API, but don't have anything akin to rotational latency. At some point I may decide to create a chapter focusing on storage (cache, memory, and "disks," regardless of technology) and another on network IO, but for now, the traditional view that IO largely means disk and network access seems reasonable to me. I welcome comments on the best way to organize these issues.
So what are the topics relevant to the creation of sizzling disk and network IO? Here are the main ones on my list:
- Prefetching, buffering, and caching (by hardware, drivers, OSes, language runtime systems, and applications)
- Asynchronous and concurrent reads/writes (including disk striping)
- Memory-mapping files
- Avoiding disk fragmentation
- Network protocol choices (e.g., TCP vs UDP)
- Doing IO on deltas instead of full data sets
- Reducing network distances (e.g., via CDNs)
- Data compression and "bundling" (e.g., CSS sprites)
- Latency vs. Bandwidth
Saturday, February 21, 2009
To a large degree, the decision boiled down to choosing the devil I know over the devils I don't. The more I looked into XML-based approaches, the more I became convinced that I'd have to educate myself in XML, XSLT, and CSS, technologies I don't know. (Not knowing them puts me horribly out of step with the modern world, but I've been busy with other things. If you want to know about the interaction of relaxed hardware memory models on C++ compiler optimizations, how to efficiently make use of the STL, or how to model embedded-system FSAs in C++, I'm your guy. I can also tell you a thing or two about the challenges of multiple-platform authoring.) I could learn those technologies, of course, and it would be interesting and useful for me to do so. But if I honestly want to get Fastware! written, I have to focus on that, and XML, XSLT, and CSS don't fall within that focus. Besides, I suspect (but have not confirmed) that when using an XML schema, I'm constrained to using the style (element?) names defined by the schema, and I'd prefer to use book-specific style names instead of generic names.
Regarding reST and LaTeX, the former I don't know, and the latter I've mostly forgotten. Both would require dealing with learning curves that would ultimately leave me in a place where I still would be unlikely to be able to achieve everything I wanted. Neither is WYSIWYG, for example, and a short time with reST revealed that it's not as expressive as I'd like.
Microsoft Word doesn't really do conditional content (though there is apparently an add-on that makes the feature available), and it has the irritating constraint that certain of its style names can't be deleted, but the real problem is that, based on my limited experience with it, the learning curve is both steep and essentially limitless. (In an earlier post, I likened it to that of C++.) It doesn't help that many authors with Word experience talk about it as if they were the victims of unusually sadistic domestic abuse.
My experience with Open Office led me to conclude that it simply isn't up to authoring the kind of book I want to write.
FrameMaker I already know. It's lacking in the areas of conditional formatting, per-copy personalization, and separation of content from presentation, but I have some ideas for how to deal with these limitations. Furthermore, FM can generate MIF, a textual representation of its documents, and MIF can be transformed into other formats if you throw enough programming effort at it. There's also the FDK (FrameMaker Developer Kit), an API for FM documents, so, again, there's a programmatic hook to do things myself that FrameMaker can't do. I've never tried to transform MIF or use the FDK, so if I have to go that route, I'm back in the land of learning curves, but I think there's a learning curve in front of me no matter what technology I choose. My sense is that, overall, the ratio of time spent writing to time spent fighting with the authoring technology is likely to be best with FrameMaker.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, the saying goes, and certainly that's been the case for me and book-writing. For at least the last 10 years, each time I've finished a book using FM, I've vowed not to use it again. The next time I got ready to start a book, I investigated the alternatives and talked to authors for recommendations. Each time I came away with the impression that there was no choice I was likely to find less unpleasant than Frame. The stuff I'm made of is apparently closer to Britney Spears than Donald Knuth, because oops, I'm going to do it again.
Friday, February 20, 2009
The information has come from many sources. I began with personal interviews with several groups and individuals working on speed-sensitive systems -- a fascinating experience. That gave me a good base from which to begin my search for further information, information I've found in the form of articles, conference papers, blog entries, podcasts, videos, and more. The most relevant sources of information I've been recording in an Excel spreadsheet, and I've decided to make this spreadsheet available at the (primitive, but I'm working on it) Fastware! web site from time to time. I've just uploaded the initial snapshot, which has 75 entries in it.
It's going to take me a while to write Fastware!, but if you're interested in speed-related information in the meantime, I hope my list of sources will be useful to you.
Monday, February 16, 2009
One of the things I got from the conference is that authors would be well-advised to assume that as time goes on, more and more people will consume content on small devices. Currently we call such devices "mobile phones," but in reality, they're truly personal, truly portable computers -- the general-purpose devices people will have with them almost all the time. As such, electronic books in whatever format will be increasingly viewed on small screens.
Think of what that means for content that normally features complex diagrams, large tables, etc. In the past, I've written my books knowing that the content would fit on physical pages of about 9 x 7 inches. After taking margins into account, I had pages of about 7.25 x 4.75 inches to tell my story, and I designed things to fit within those constraints. An iPhone screen is about 3 x 2 inches, meaning that if I want my content to work well on that device, I have to make sure it will (1) fit and (2) be comprehensible when it's displayed there. Prose is not a problem, but other things could be: source code listings, diagrams, tables, graphs, etc.
It seems unlikely that people will want to read lengthy ("long-form") content on a tiny screen, and usage data suggest that people generally read using such devices during "between times," i.e., while commuting, while waiting for a meeting to start, etc. -- generally no more than about 20 minutes a pop. The best content for such reading is "short form," and this suggests that authors who want to make their content small-screen-friendly need to find a way to break their presentations into comparatively small chunks that are naturally consumable more or less independently.
Interestingly, this is one of the characteristics that my "Effective" books tend to have, because the material is generally broken down into Items of 4-6 pages that pretty much stand on their own. This is a popular feature of these books, something I didn't realize until I wrote some much longer Items in my second book (More Effective C++), and people complained about it. This suggests that a naturally chunkable presentation not only makes things more small-screen-friendly, it can also be a benefit in print form.
Fastware! won't be broken down into Items, because I don't think that's the best way to cover the material I want to discuss, but I'll definitely be thinking of ways to structure the material so that it can be easily consumed in relatively small, self-contained chunks.
On small screens.
Or as audio.
In addition to ink-on-paper form :-)