I was given this book, and felt compelled to read it through, but there wasn't much to pull me forward in it except my obligation to try to appreciate a gift from a friend. I failed to see a story in it. It reads like a collection of light humorous essays, that never varies in theme. Although I was touched at times by the smiling tone, that wasn't enough to let me recommend it.

God's Front Porch took me back to the country church of my East Alabama childhood. This Arkansas congregation is a sit-com of inner pew politics where the new preacher, fresh from a Texas seminary, is tested by a congregation more than ready to give him his walking papers for the slightest infraction -- such as daring to preach from anything other than the King James Version. While he tries to learn local custom and avoid the antics of the church's notorious twin youngsters, congregational old-timers "smoke him over" to see what he is made of. Can he preach without notes, for example? To find out, why not plaster his sermon to the ceiling with the strong suction of an attic fan. Can the Baptist preacher hold his own in a tango with the Church of Christer? Let the hot-headed heathen button-hole him in full view of the congregation and see if he loses his religion. Into this mine field of a congregation, whose members frequent the parsonage mostly for its indoor plumbing, walks a chap of a preacher who finds trouble the way a Scud missile finds its target. Prone to mishap, he unwittingly buys a "Hitler car" and drives the bug to the home of an ailing parishioner who lost a son in the war. He is run off at gunpoint. He baptises in a muddy creek only to be stuck fast, leaving his good shoes on the creek bottom. Church members take to following him around to see just what will happen next, and they don't hesitate to take advantage of his naivete. One volunteers a smoked ham for Preacher's table that turns out to be last year's sawdust variety. But Preacher soon catches on with the help of the book's narrator, a church deacon who takes a liking to the boy preacher and teaches him the finer points of ministry that can't be learned in seminary. With humor and patience he helps Preacher realize the old adage that "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." Convinced that the preacher cares, they might come to believe God does, too. And Preacher teaches the old-timer a thing or two about the power of true belief to convert even the most confirmed sinner. God's Front Porch is a delightful return to the old days of dinner on the grounds with the attendant care to avoid the boxed supper of the bad cook. It's a humorous, yet thoughtful look at the dance between preacher, congregation and community and how that dance often ends just when everyone's starting to get the hang of it.

I was looking to improve myself. I saw this was an inexpensive book on improving confidence. I had always believed I needed help in this area so I ordered it.

I originally found it on a Christian book site, and being a Christian thought that would be the place to start. I began reading, excited with the prospect that in the end I would be more confident and would have accomplished it through a Christian source.

Now that I have finished reading, I realize that it was missing a few things (thus the two stars) The focus in the book is "listening to yourself" I never understood what this meant (minus 1 star), even with the examples sited. By listening to yourself you will apparently get a proper perspective of yourself. You can't get a proper perspective from one point of view of anything (minus another star). Being that this book was suppose to be a Christian resource, I was dissapointed to discover the lack of prayer as a source of help (minus the third star). I don't remember any prayer, scripture or anything pointing to God in this book.

In the end, I came up with my own solutions (with some prayer and scripture reading and help from my husband)

My mother was always trying to "cure" me as a child to turn from being an independent, attention-getting terror to her version of a tollerable human being. This is one of the books she foisted upon me in 1976. While it didn't change my life, it did effect my attitude.

The books examines how we feel about ourselves and how we judge ourselves by what others say and do and what we presume they think about us. It takes the whole self esteem issue and tackles it head on. Twenty-five years later this book is still on my bookshelf. It means more to me now, even though it is good for teens.

When we really stop to look inside of ourselves, do we like what we find? If not, why should we expect others to like us? The book examines our value system and how to learn to like ourselves.

If you need a good, easy to read book that tackles self esteem issues, especially for a teen or young adult, this is a quick read and I highly recommend it.

I bought this book in kind of a hurry, and you know what they say, "haste makes waste". What I was in the market for was a guide to current French idioms. And this book superficially resembles such a guide, and can even be used, to some extent, as such a guide. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the sub-title of this book and realize that it's intended audience is for English speaking French language dilettantes. And as such, this book mostly fulfils its purpose. Just don't expect this book to be that relevant to modern french as you might encounter it in speaking to native speakers or in reading francophone media. Nonetheless, I do believe that the presentation of this book is somewhat misleading, and that its scholarly, bookish, non-relevant content is insufficiently highlighted, thereby making it easy to mistake it for a useful guide to modern French idioms.

Another thing I didn't like about this book is the organization of entries around key words, or phrases, as opposed to around concepts. For example, 4 phrases are grouped in one large paragraph, all of which include the french phrase "avoir le main". For another example, 9 phrases are grouped in one large paragraph that all include the word "mal". I don't see this as a very useful way to group things, at all. This renders the book into a sort of concordance, as opposed to something useful, like a thesaurus. The concordance aspect might be useful in "amazing" a group of people at a cocktail party by reeling off all the French phrases one knows that include the phrase "avoir le main". But I, for one, see very little value or entertainment in such a performance. And furthermore, such a concordance feature could have been provided by an additional index that keyed on common French words or phrases, instead of cluttering up the body of the main text with such material.

But the thing that really irritates me the most about this book are the little witticisms that the author frequently includes in the explanatory paragraphs that accompany each entry. First of all, at least half the time, these paragraphs aren't even necessary, they are only used to give the literal translation of the given phrase. A more straightfoward presentation of the book would have been to include the literal transation of each phrase as one of the distinct items in each entry and then only include an explanatory paragraph when there was actually something substantive to add. As it stands, though, every explanatory paragraph is present, whether there is anything to say, or not. And, apart from the literal translation, this often includes annoying, unfunny witticisms and obvious, un-clever observations. For example, for the entry for the phrase "loup de mer", which is literally translated as "sea wolf", the following unnecessary, irrelevant and unfunny observation, or aside, is made: "Shades of Jack London". For another example, for the entry for "il n'y a pas de heros pur son valet de chambre", which means "no man is a hero to his valet", the following unnecessary, irrelevant and unfunny observation, or aside, is made: "As for one's public persona - its fate is in the hands of one's press representatives and public relations firms".

So, one other thing that this book might be seen to teach, apart from French, is how to be the sort of person who always says something when they have the opportunity of speaking, even when they have nothing to say, i.e., it teaches one how to be a pompous boor.

I suppose a certain amount of boorishness is to be expected where the French language is concerned, because of it's long reputation as THE language of high culture in the western world. But boorishness is usually a quality I expect to find in conversation, and not in the printed word.

In this books favor, I must say that the pronunciations given with each entry are very excellent and useful.

"Les Bons Mots: How to Amaze 'Tout le Monde' with Everyday French" is another fun book from Dr. Eugene Ehrlich, coeditor of "The Oxford English Dictionary" and author of the the "Extraordinarily Literate" series and other language books. At first glance, "Bons Mots" appears to be a glossary of sorts, or a compendium of useful French expressions and aphorisms, but on closer inspection, one finds a very well presented exposition of classic French phrases and proverbs, with excellent pronunciation guides. This book is not intended to be taken on a trip to France as a guide to what French people are saying, but rather it is a reference book for either looking up something in French that one comes across in one's reading, or a source for interjecting a bit of spice into one's own prose. Dr. Ehrlich's Latin phrase books, "Amo, Amas, Amat" and "Veni, Vidi, Vici" provided a model for this book, so people who like those books will like this one too. One can either use "Bons Mots" like a dictionary or simply read it here and there for fun. Many of the entries are annotated with morsels of French history and usage notes, and there is an index, in English. Highly recommended addition for the well-stocked reference shelf!

Although packed with good information, this text was just too big to fit in a ward coat, and held too much information to be utilized effectively, unlike other books in the series. There are better quick-review resources out there for use on the wards.

The book contains concise information for USMLE step 2 preparation. Even though it is priced on the higher side, it seems to be worth the money you put into it. For those who want to review their med school stuff quickly and completely this is a good buy. Especially useful for FMGs.

I never before bought a book with so many typographical errors in it, which is unacceptable in this category of price. This is infortunate because the book covers topics which are difficult to find elsewhere.

At last: a review of a continually-developing subject that's up-to-date, comprehensive and readable. I know of no other text on this subject that covers the ground from the basic physics of X-ray production to the most recent advances in Nuclear Medicine, CT and MR in such an accessible way. No relevant detail is excluded, yet the text is never boring in the manner of previous efforts on these subjects. For those preparing for Boards or Fellowship exams, and for those practising in the field, this book is essential.

I used Schaum's Oulines to study for my accounting CLEP test, preparing for my MBA program. The Financial and Managerial Accounting titles were excellent. I have also used them to supplement my MBA texts in Operations Management and Financial Management. Overall, the series is lucid and easy to follow. I was expecting this title to follow suit.

Unfortunately, it did not.

The exposition is shoddy at best. Though I could solve the problems as they were given, I found myself struggling to understand economics. Since I was studying to CLEP test out of my prerequisite Micro and Macro Econ, I was concerned. After a few weeks, I purchased Harper Collins' College Outlines' Intro to Economics, and was pleasantly surprised to find that I could understand economics.

I am an old beginner in Economics. I just wanted to study to prepare my CMA certificate. Schaum's series are very popular in Korea, and maybe in the United States also for their selected many problems. That's why I chose this book for my preparation in Economics exam. Economics is very broad and practical studies. This book is written in 1995, 5 years ago from now. Someone feels it is too old to study. But I don't think so, because how much change in 5 years in Economics. The economy of a society is changing a lot in 5 years evidently but the Economics cannot be changed a lot in 5 years even in these E-days! I graduated from school longtime ago, and sometimes I was stupid in my school days because I just studied the text only without so many problems. I am now sure that the problem-driven study is the best way to conquer the complex theory. Good luck to you, and hope to find this book to help your understanding the Economics theory and extend to your real life.

Stanley Fish's The Trouble With Principle is one of the more robust communitarian rants to come along. Indeed, Fish's talents as a polemicist are quite clear in each chapter. However, the trouble with polemicists is that they are long on barbs, wit and literary allusions but short on cogent argument. While Fish's rants against procedural liberalism will no doubt influence many (that's what good polemicists do, after all), a close look at his line of reasoning will show the flaws which accompany his and most other communitarian critiques of liberalism. First, there is the claim that liberalism is devoid of any moral or political joie de vivre, which can only be reinjected into our civic/political life if we all bite the bullet, so to speak, and become Hobbesians (Hobbes is one of Fish's heroes in the book). Liberalism is, to the contrary, an historical development designed to address the nasty things we have tended to do to each other in the name of our various causes and strong loyalties(that is, in the pursuit of our individual conceptions of the good). Liberalism is not a "view from nowhere" (Fish picks up Nagel's line here), but rather a view from the battlefields of human strife and hatred. Second, Fish would have much less "trouble with principle" if he simply viewed principles as what they are - general rules of moral conduct that often clash with other general rules of moral conduct. This is a pragmatic rather than a Platonic or a priori conception of "principle." Unwittingly, Fish takes up the definition of principle held by the enemies of his own moral convictions (some of which are good ones). People like Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly and Pat Buchanan get to use principles in the way that Fish suggests because they have a rather jejune understanding about how we in fact derive our principles (historically and genealogically). Rather than problematize principles, as Fish does, we should recognize that we need them, only that sometimes these handy and efficient little guides of behavior come into conflict. When they do it takes us grown-ups some time to sort through which principle(s) will win out. We do this by using tests like equity and conceptions of justice and of the self. This is done only through protracted argumentation and high rhetoric, the kind which helps us to really understand how we can best do justice to our common humanity in the face of moral crisis. Oh, and did I mention that Fish thinks the notion of "common humanity" is, well, all wet? Fish might do well to consider that the principle of non-discrimination need not be problematized because it is used by enemies of affirmative action in naughty and illegitimate ways. A better approach would be to keep the principle and introduce others which have "equal" moral weight(like those which attend Aristotelian restorative justice). Ah, the trouble with polemicists. Anyway, I'll give Fish's book three stars just for the sheer joy derived from witnessing mischief in the making.

As always, Fish's gadfly polemic will compel and madden at the same time. Fish is a stringent anti-foundationalist, challenging the ethical presumption that we can base our public policy and discourse on neutral principals upon which every person can agree. No, says Fish, these principles are little more than obfuscations of deeper, unstated agendas. Fish explores his thesis in creative deconstructions of such unquestioned notions as "academic freedom," "freedom of speech," and the "cultural canon."

The book suffers somewhat from the repetitive nature of the study (after all, Fish is basically restating the same thesis over and over again). It is as if Fish is playing a rhetorical fugue, creating new variations in each chapter on the same theme. The song doesn't always sound as compelling from chapter to chapter, but the balance of the book is worthwhile and provocative. The best chapter of the book, chapter 1, explores multi-culturalism and affirmative action in compelling fashion. Fish does well to reorient the debate so as to demonstrate how the very concept of principal robs Fish (and I presume, others who agree with Fish's politics) of the ability to include historical particularity as a factor in public policy. Thus, even Fish's deconstruction of principals is a political act, Fish's way of removing an obstacle to the furtherance of his undeniable agenda.

The implication of Fish's thesis is that western culture consists of a complex mixture of competing agendas, stories, and ethical values that cannot cohere through simple appeals to foundational principles ("freedom of individual self-expression," "speech," "religion," ad nauseaum). Even if we give up the notion that there are neutral principals, this only underlines the communally-conditioned principals that distinguish Christian, secularist, Muslim, and Jew. What we have now is not a principal-less society but a society of competing principals rooted in competing conceptions of reality. Fish is much more descriptive than prescriptive in his assessment. In the end, Fish seems to imply that there is no real prescription, only the mushrooming of rhetoric as agendas clash in the public sphere.

If I recall correctly, Voltaire once suggested that we should cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it. This seems to be Fish's attitude toward "principle." He is not opposed to it, per se. Rather, he opposes what he views to be abuses of "principle" when invoked to validate a given position, especially one to which he is opposed. In the Prologue, he observes that "bad things are now being done in the name of neutral principles, and I hope it is clear by now that it is no paradox to say that bad things are being done by something that doesn't exist." For Fish, a "neutral principle" is one favored by liberal theorists whose claim is that "abstractions like fairness, impartiality, mutual respect, and reasonableness can be defined in ways not hostage to any partisan agenda."

The argument of his book, therefore, is that political realism "can be a resource for politics, not for politics in the rarefied sense named by chimeras like fairness and mutual respect but for politics as it has always been practiced, and practiced honorably, in the wards and boroughs of ancient Rome, seventeenth-century London, and twentieth-century Chicago."

The first section of his book sets out the aforementioned "argument" against neutral principle and for politics. The second section focuses on the "arena" of First Amendment jurisprudence within which neutral principles are most active. In the third section, Fish concentrates on the religion clause of the First Amendment, explaining why " the dream of liberal neutrality" encounters so many difficulties when subjected to a discourse "that refuses to be confined within the precincts of the private." In the fourth and final section, Fish shares a number of "general speculations" and then a few of his personal beliefs. The title of the Epilogue ("How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words") correctly indicates Fish's concern that liberals and progressives have lost control of "the vocabulary of America's civil religion" to their traditional opponents, the conservatives. According to Fish, this is a lamentable but undeniable political reality.

I was curious to know what others have said about this book. Although I have not read all of the reviews, those I have read seem to fall within two predictable categories: readers who share Fish's concerns and convictions praise the book; those who do not tend to dismiss it as misguided polemics. Why do I rate it so highly? There are three basic reasons. First, it is very well written. Second, the power of Fish's assertions has forced me to re-examine my own convictions (eg about "the vocabulary of civil religion" and the larger issue of how any terms are defined). Third, Fish has directed me to a number of other books and articles which were previously unknown to me. He thus helps to broaden and deepen my frame-of-reference. I am eager to explore all of these sources.

Dante reserved the seventh (and worst) ring in Hell for those who, in a moral crisis, maintained their neutrality. Perhaps this is what Fish had in mind when he observes (in the Prologue): "Taking sides, weapon in hand, is not a sign of zealotry or partisanship; it is the sign of morality; and it is the morality of taking sides, of frank and vigorous political action, that is celebrated (not urged; it is inevitable) in the pages that follow." Fish need have no fear of that seventh ring.

While the book provides a wealth of information and numerous valuable sources of information, the author is biased to mid-sized apartment buildings. Despite his recommendations to hire top notch professional "consultants" to save time and limit problems, readers should be prepared to perform the necessary due dilegence required to find and monitor good consultants (requires your time and $), and to research and understand the conditions of each real estate market in detail. I benefited from the points set forth in the book overall, but compared to other "how to" books I've read, this one lacks the depth that I expected given its title.

This book offers some decent advice as to market timing and investment strategies as particular to apartment buildings and it shows a possible scenario that assumes appreciation of the building (which is what everyone assumes anyway when the invest in real estate). I thought it was pretty good. At least it wasn't a get-rich-quick scheme as most real estate investment books seem to be.

I have been investing in residential properties for 27 years. Over the years I also attained the Certified Property Manager (CPM) designation. Based on my long experience and review of many other books in this field over the years, I find Vollucci's work an excellent one. The book covers all the essential steps an investor should take, and it is not too technical. Buying apartments or even fourplexas requires a considerable amount of work. At first properties may be hard to find and evaluate, but gradually one becomes more and more at ease with the process. Like no other, this book brings together all the elements of search and evaluation. In my opinion this is the best multi-family residential investment guide to date. I just bought my paperback last week (March 1999) and found that it was published in 1993. Although the nation's economy and real estate market for the most part has improved since 1993, this guide is entirely applicable today, even in my fairly tough area (Austin, Texas). Needless to say, I wish I had read it five years ago.

The Pope of Paleontology once bemoaned the woeful inadequacies of education in evolution in America. The authors of this book represent a prime example of the validity of Stephen Gould's lament. It may seem an oversimplification of the authors' theme to call it "neurotheology" or "hardwired for gods", but their case is so overstated that perhaps a balance is thereby achieved. Relying on Buddhist meditators and praying nuns, the authors recorded brain activity states to compare with "normal" conditions. They then go on to link various areas and functions of the brain to demonstrate that religion is an evolutionary product. For the prurient reader, they contend that the transcendental feelings we obtain from sex links through the limbic system to other parts of the brain becoming the foundation for "religious experience". Freud would have loved this book.

The authors map the brain/mind to build a framework to explain the universality of religion. Their outlook is almost entirely from Western Civilization - even the Buddhist meditators are American. From this flimsy foundation and the contributions of some Western philosophers, the authors go on to construct their edifice. The brain, they argue, is designed as a "window to [g]od" which they rename the Absolute Unitary Being. They contend that gods are not the product of a cognitive, deductive process, but were instead "discovered" in a mystical or spiritual encounter. Shoring up their structure with numerous spurious assertions of the brains' processes, they see this capability having been designed through evolution. Not since the concept of "the Great Chain of Being" have humans been granted such a glorious role. GCoB exalted reasoning as giving humans "superiority" over the rest of the animal kingdom - telepathy to the divine was a step too far.

Many fine books reflecting recent brain research have been published in recent years. While their descriptions of brain processes make vivid reading, there are far better sources available on the topic. The authors cite a few and ignore the rest. The ones they cite utilise information with adroit selectivity. In fact, most of their sources have been chosen with finesse. A glaring omission is Walter Burkert's Creation of the Sacred. Whatever Burkert's flaws he, at least, makes a serious attempt to extract valid evolutionary roots for religious ideas. Newberg and D'Aquili begin with the premise that there is a god [one, please note] and then manipulate neurological research to "discover" it. Like Burkert, this pair ignores the power of memes to propagate ideas and stimulate response behaviour, a major element in the dissemination of religious thought, but Richard Dawkins is ignored in this book at any level. It's interesting that after pages of "neurotheology" explaining how the brain is there to communicate with a god, at the end they waffle over its actual existence.

Although the flaws in the authors' logic are immeasurable, their frequent references to human evolution display even more glaring faults. They assert that Australapithicines likely didn't have sufficient brain power to invoke deities, but grant this level of intellect to Homo erectus. They assert H. erectus was the first to have a mind capable of considering "existential dread", but unable to perceive their deity. Not until H. Neanderthalis did the concept of deities arise, which they claim is evidenced by ritual burials. Ritual burial and deities are linked in today's world, but there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest this is the way of Neanderthal thought. Nor is there any reason to believe that "dread" alone was the prime mover in considering the natural world. Benefits were clearly available - successful hunts, available fruits and vegetables, water - were these not also granted divine status? Their theme, rife with inconsistencies, keeps the deity at arm's length until a hominid evolved to talk to It. That presupposes 3.6 billion years of their god waiting in limbo. Divine patience, indeed! And if the Chixculub asteroid had missed the Earth, who would the AUB communicate with today? [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

I found this book in the Science / Biology section, and since it seemed to go address an important and interesting topic ("A facinating study of the neurological basis of mystical and religious experience") I bought a copy. The first several chapters contained interesting information about brain structure and function, but had the feel of 'lightweight' science. The authors seemed to be drawing conclusions not supported by the data. As the book progressed it became apparent that the authors had their own agenda and beliefs to promote, and rational scientific inquiry was nowhere to be seen. Statements like "The wisdom of the mystics, it seems, has predicted for centuries what neurology now shows to be true: In Absolute Unitary Being, self blends into other, mind and matter are one and the same state" show how far afield the authors take their data. Their clear belief in the "Absolute Unitary Being" (not to be confused with anything like the Judeo-Christian concept of a personal God), and frequent use of phrases like "being one with the universe" were difficult to take seriously. If you're into 'New Age' reading, this book is right up your alley. If you're looking for serious science, save yourself some time and frustration and look elsewhere.

Science cannot determine that gods of any type exist, nor can it determine that no gods exist. However, there may be scientific reasons why the belief in gods remains strong. In the surprisingly titled _Why God Won't Go Away_ Ballantine Books) by Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquilli, M.D., and Vince Rause, we get a fascinating scientific answer to the title question, and a review of the current scientific understanding of the roots of belief. The authors have done research by means of brain scans on those who are having mystical or religious experiences. The brain scans show that something is going on among the neurons that doesn't happen at other times. Most of the scans described in the authors' research show an increase in activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe, an area just behind the top of the head. They call this for operational purposes the "orientation association area (OAA)," because the OAA orients a person in physical space. "To perform this crucial function, it must first generate a clear, consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self. In simple terms, it must draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else; to sort out the you from the infinite not-you that makes up the rest of the universe." When this area is damaged by trauma or stroke, patients have difficulty maneuvering in physical space; when it is extra active, it seems to be a source of an inexplicable feeling of connection to all creation. A meditator describes the ineffable state in terms that are typical: "There's a sense of timelessness and infinity. It feels like I am part of everyone and everything in existence."

The authors explain that the gene-driven wiring of the brain to encourage religious beliefs exists because it has been evolutionarily good for us. Stimulating the OAA or the autonomic nervous system can produce calm and a sense of well-being which may be not only pleasant but physically beneficial. Beliefs driven by neurology could reinforce themselves by building myths, encouraging ritual, uniting societies and providing social support from fellow believers. They can check worry about eventual annihilation. They can provide a feeling of control.

Those of a religious bent will find matter to argue with inside these pages, even though the authors are very careful not to argue for or against the existence of deities, only that "the neurological aspects of spiritual experience support the sense of the realness of God." Some may also find disconcerting the idea that ecstasy of religious mysticism may have its roots in the structures that bring on orgasm. Others will find the practical answer to the title's question just too pragmatic and pat, but given the extraordinary research as it now stands, it is the best that science can do as it begins to look into religious feeling: "What we know beyond question is that the mind is essentially a machine designed to solve the riddles of existence, and as long as our brains are wired as they are, God will not go away." This book is a wonderful introduction into this fascinating research.

If you are new to MFC, like I was, stay away from this book. It is completely useless for a beginner since I doesnt really cover the basics. Reading it will just confuse you. A few of the chapters can be helpful once you become an expert, but it's not worth the money.

I couldn't wait to get this book because it covered quite a bit.
The selling points for me were the chapters on Multimedia (including OpenGL, and DirectX) with MFC, and Scripting an MFC Application. The OpenGL chapter was effective because it worked and I saw all the steps. I never tried the DirectX because reading it seemed like it took for ever to get down to the point. To me, good programming books take a code first, explain later approach (as long as they remember to explain) or an explain as you code approach, but never explain everything then code.

As it turns out, this book touches on quite a bit of key topics in MFC programming. However, some times it doesnt take you to the point of having practical knowledge. For example, the section on building an ActiveX control with MFC never explains how to implement the events your control will fire -- a point that I was most interested in. Perhaps the gravest shortcoming was the sections on Active Documents. Another key feature of MFC programming (very interesting) that didn't get proper treatment. Maybe it's just me, but even though it gave a brief explaination of the many different parts that go into Active Documents, it didn't put it all together in an eye opening way. To it's credit, the book does provide an example of building an Active Document server, and it reveals something very important -- there is little difference from the programmers perspective in handling applications with and without active document support. The only problem I have with the example is that it doesn't point out where a whole bunch of the pieces it just talked about (i.e., COleDocIPFrameWnd, COleServerItem, etc.) fit in, nor how we should use them.

This book has potential, but it wastes a bunch of space by having definitions of documented functions, and MFC source code, and function prototypes in it.

I'd save my 50 bucks for something else if you're thinking of getting this book.

Well this book objectively only deserves three stars, especially compared to Prosises book. But I really liked reading in it and it caught much more my attention. Thats my personal bonus of one star.

Nearly each chapter of this book has a different author. Probably most authors read the headings of the other chapters, but not the chapters themselves. This makes them somewhat more selfcontained than in other books but also nothing is really thoroughly explained. I started with the winsock chapter which is a marvel. I would never have been reading past the first chapter without it. This contains a general architectural overview, which would make a good appendix. It certainly doesn't help you to get startet with this book or anything else.

I enjoyed reading all the different authors viewpoints on MFC and can recommand this book to anyone wanting a good collection of articles on it.