<< 1 >>
Rating: ![1 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-1-0.gif) Summary: Sam's Teach yourself Visual J++ in 21 days Review: Like most other books published by Sam's, Teach yourself Visual J++ in 21 days really lacks any learning value. Subjects are often incomplete, wordy or skip important explainations. In addition to it's lack of quality, this book has several mistypes or mistakes. I would not recommend this book even to an experienced OOP programmer wanting to get a grasp on J++.
Rating: ![2 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-2-0.gif) Summary: A lesson in Frustration Review: This was the first Java book I bought. Once I realized that the book was incredibly buggy and that it wasn't me screwing something up, I was able to learn a small bit about Java (just because I had to go digging in another manual to find out why my applets didn't work after following the examples). In a nut shell, this book taught me how bad Visual J++ is. I was determine to stick with Microsoft products but I just couldn't stands no more.
Rating: ![1 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-1-0.gif) Summary: sams teach yourself CGI in a week is very deceptive Review: Too much topics are not covered.I was disappointed by this book. Too much subject are tackled but not deeply. It is just an overview that takes 21 days.
Rating: ![2 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-2-0.gif) Summary: A thoroughly useful book (if you can fix all the mistakes!) Review: Well, I was a little disappointed with this book. I've bought a few "Teach Yourself...in XX Days" books before and enjoyed them, but this one had a few too many mistakes in the code to be much useful. Almost every code listing in the book has a mistake in it.
Rating: ![1 stars](http://www.reviewfocus.com/images/stars-1-0.gif) Summary: Even with an editor, it's full of errors Review: You would think, with an editor (Patrick Winters, who should keep his day job), that this book would have less than the usual number of errors and typos found in a computer book. Instead, it has just as many, if not more. How frustrating! O'Reilly and a few others do it right; why not Sams?Errors aside, the book has that 'written by a committee' feel, and I found myself consulting other books to figure out concepts that made no sense in this one. The new edition of the book was scheduled for release in January 1999; it still hasn't seen the light of day, over a year later. What does that say?
<< 1 >>
|