2 of 5 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not suitable for everyone, 2 Dec. 2011
The writers of this book have a certain philosophy about how to write books. They use a lot of pictures (as in, your high school and primary school books might have had less pictures). Also, the usefullness of most pictures is limited at best (like tigers, guitars). For example, if code for an inventory system for a guitar shop is analysed, there will be a continuous stream of pictures of a guy with a guitar in his hand.
Another tool employed by the writers is redundancy, which is a nice word for writing the same thing several times with just minor variations. This is very usefull if you don't understand something and can't be bothered to go back to the page where this was explained, because they will simply explain it again.
The style might certainly be usefull for some. One big downside for everyone is however, that if you want to go back to 'check something', it is quite hard to find it. Things are usually expained over several pages, and there are very little summaries or clear definitions. This is especially annoying if you know a lot of the things that the book describes, but not everything, since then you'll be reading a lot of pages without actually reading anything interesting to you. It all comes down to information density, which is extremely low. That might work for some people but if you (like me) prefer to read structured books with more compact information, this book is not for you.
It has to be said, that the book is sometimes funny. Especially if you try to explain to someone that you actually use the book for Computer Sciences. For some reason they can't really stop laughing at that time, so it must be funny. Right?