I was involved in making the book. It is very much a book for academics, and came out of an academic conference bringing together people working at the forefront of SSA-based research.
I mean, once again, I’m not really complaining about the book. It’s fairly mathy, sure, but so what. I also actually welcome that it’s a coherent book rather than a bunch of papers in a trenchcoat or a menagerie of neat things people have thought of (*cough* Paxos variants).
It’s rather that it’s a bit unusual in that it’s a coherent book whose prerequisites (on top of an old-timey compilers course, say) I don’t think actually exist in book form (I’d love to be proven wrong, as that’s likely what I need to read). The introductory part does make it self-contained in a sense, but it’s more like those grad-level maths books that include a definitions chapter or three: technically you don’t need to know any of that stuff beforehand, true, but in reality if it does more for you than just fill a few gaps and fix terminology, then you’re not going to have a good time with the rest. Again, just my experience, I don’t know if that’s what you were going for.
If there was a criticism implied in my initial comment, it’s that I think that the kind of person that goes looking for literature recommendations in this thread isn’t going to have a good time with it, either; so at the very least they should know what they’re signing up for. But I don’t think you’re really disagreeing with that part?..
