What a weird hill to die on. Books are long written compositions, their format (whether it's on dead trees, computer, or spoken out) is completely irrelevant.

Abstract weird hill. Book, irrespective of the medium, should provide information in an ordered fashion. Printing words and pictures on paper was one of the many ways to express what the book author wanted to say in the times when screens were not invented. The purpose of books was to communicate a thought, philosophy or a concept. If that can be done using technology without harming any trees, sign me up. Books are books, irrespective of the medium they are delivered on.

it always sounds weird until it isn’t. the container is the most important characteristics of a book. to pass it off as irrelevant is not only intellectually dishonest but also just plain wrong.

No, it's not. Some of the oldest books are written on bamboo stripes, and others on clay tablets.

> Some of the oldest books are written on bamboo stripes, and others on clay tablets.

exactly. there used to be physical scrolls too before the romans invented the paginated codex. all of those older tech died later because it was hard to beat direct access, referential accessibility and format-ability of the modern physical codex book. our current tech emulates the physical scroll too and is therefore not able to compete with dead tree books.

Merriam Webster:

  book noun
  \ ˈbu̇k  \
  
  Definition of book (Entry 1 of 3)
  1a: a set of written sheets of skin or paper or tablets of wood or ivory
  b: a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together between a front and back cover
  an address book
  c: a long written or printed literary composition
  reading a good book
  reference books
  hardcover and paperback books
  d: a major division of a treatise or literary work
  the books of the Bible
  eaccounting : a record of a business's financial transactions or financial condition —often used in plural
  the books show a profit
  f: MAGAZINE sense 1a
  g: E-BOOK

  [...]

Cambridge Dictionary:

  book
  noun
  UK  /bʊk/ US  /bʊk/
   
  A1 [ C ]
  a written text that can be published in printed or electronic form:
  
  [...]

You're entitled to have your own rigid definition if you wish, but it's pretty silly to go in a public forum and try to browbeat others with it.

I would say he is not entitled to any such thing, as he doesn't own the language.

Ah, the overflowing privilege of handing out entitlements? Your brethren doesn’t own the language either, you know that right?

The situation is in no way symmetric, as only one party is claiming a non-standard limitation on valid uses of the language. The other parties are claiming both a standard and more permissive use.

This is a classic flat earth argument.

‘Because people are saying so...’

Proper definition is the only definition that there is. Improper definitions may be valid uses in colloquial speak, but that doesn’t work for accurate description of products at hand. Success of physical books, as in the data, is a proof of proper usage. I rest my case. Time to go back to work.

Edit: Response to the child comment below:

You're going in the wrong direction.

That 'books are not files' is a plain fact. It has nothing to do with popular opinion or liberal usage of words. Although, if you were to look at it liberally through the lens of popular usage alone then also the usage and growth of dead tree books over the shallow market of files masquerading as ebooks will reveal the same plain fact.

>This is a classic flat earth argument. ‘Because people are saying so...’

No. Again you reason by false equivalence. The shape of the earth is not determined by popular opinion. The meaning of words is determined by popular usage.

Wikipedia:

‘A book is a set of printed sheets of paper held together between two covers.’

I’d say going by definitions on Merriam Webster and others shared by you + real data it is safe to err on the side of proper definition. And HN complaining about browbeating? I mean come on. :)

To extract that, you had to go farther down the same page than this:

>Book medium for a collection of words and/or pictures to represent knowledge or a fictional story, often manifested in bound paper and ink, or in e-books

My wife is a managing editor (and used to be a hands-on-board) editor.

Books are edited.

There's a great book in the archives of Joel on Software (maybe he's even had it done); possibly two or N -- but that requires filtering. And then combing and rewriting/patching not to depend on links anymore (so it makes sense like five years from now, dig?), nor on an ongoing blog narrative. Then understanding the major themes to consolidate multiple blog posts in chapters.

I don't know that this has been done with a blog, but yes from lecture notes and slides, etc. Usually the writer has to come up with text (or hire a ghost writer); most of the time, he edits his work to some extent. But manuscripts never arrive ready for print.

You can see this in Lulu "books". I own Nobel Prize-winner Vernon Smith's autobiography published by a vanity press and holy hell what a mess.