Hi Hal,

"Hal Fulton" <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> wrote in message

> Seriously, Ruby is not immensely popular yet, and thus has not
> been lucrative for the publishers (or authors).

Is this true in general or you talking of some specific publisher here?
I would imagine that someone like O'Reilly will be willing to take the risk?
They have books on Bioinformatics, which I think has narrower
audience than Ruby. Am I just naive or what ?

> This may change -- indeed we're all counting on Ruby to get popular,
> aren't we?

Yes, we are :-). And things may have changed already (again at least
at O'Reily) considering that we now have our own track at OSCON.

> There's also the question of whether a second edition should
> be timed with 1.9 or with 2.0.

That depends on how long it will take to go from 1.9 to 2.0. and how
much will change between the two. If  it is significant change but coming
within a year or two then we should wait for 2.0.

> I think I can see advantages and disadvantages both ways.

Yep.

-- shanko