I tend to agree with the parent comment. The name of the book sounds like it could be part of a series authored by the same people as “The Pragmatic Programmer”. For me, I subconsciously internalized the grammar of the title as “The Pragmatic Programmer: for ML”.
I have no idea what the expectations are legally, but given the original “pragmatic programmer” book has been out for around for ~25 years and is extremely well known, it seems like a reasonable name collision to avoid.
The cover of the book has an Addison Wesley logo on it, and the hard cover also has a Pearson logo on it. So that name has some textbook companies backing up PragProg as well.
It also DOESN'T have any indication that "The Pragmatic Programmer" is any sort of trademark, so who knows. Either way, IMO calling your own writing "X for Y" where "X" is a commonly known specific work, and "Y" is a generic term, just means that you've diluted your own discoverability into a very big pot.
Why are we fixated on the name? "A Rose, by any other name, would Smell as Sweet" and all that.
What i am looking for in this submission is insights/opinions from people working in this domain on the topics presented in the book. For example, the book talks about "Concept/Data Drift"; so what is it exactly, how does a ML engineer encounter it in his data and how does he deal with it over time?
Because names mean a lot in and outside software. Try naming it “ML: The Big Nerd Ranch Guide” or use a O’Reilly/No Starch-style cover and you will get a similar reaction.
Let the authors deal with it; it doesn't concern us here.
What i am looking for is a discussion of the contents in the book which they have kindly made available for free (the book is expensive).
PS: I am always very appreciative and thankful of people who make their knowledge/books/software available for free and am sure they would like us to focus on the core contents rather than ancillary issues (which they doubtless are aware of and cleared with publishers).
Honestly, I only clicked into this thread because I associated the phrase "The Pragmatic Programmer" with the famous book, and if it's not by the same people, I am less interested in their content specifically because of the "borrowed"(stolen?) term.
It's possible, however I've already wasted time with a click based on the book title, and based on that I would prefer not to give the authors any more of my time regardless of missing out.
That makes no sense since you are the one losing out. To paraphrase a proverb; "Hate hurts you more than the person you Hate since they are unaware/unaffected by it".
My primary purpose is to use good judgement on choosing where to spend my time. Thus I choose not to read the book, it's not hate, it's judgement. My secondary purpose is to not reward those who use underhanded schemes to get ahead. This may not have been their intention, but it is how I perceive it.
Your logic, perception and judgement are all flawed. You merely looked at a familiar phrase in the title and immediately jumped to a conclusion with negative connotations. That's on you. You have no idea about the book, have read no summary/review of it and hence do not have a clue about it and yet are trying to justify your "judgement"?. The book is published by well-known publishers who would have cleared its title to make sure that there are no legal violations (i.e. underhanded schemes) which could get them into trouble. So on that count also your "judgement" fails.
I am advising you to browse/read the book because we (I and a few others in this thread) have browsed/read the book and found it worthwhile (if you are interested in the domain in the first place, of course).
I have seen some silly arguments in my time but you take the cake on "judging a book by its cover" to a whole new absurd level.
Because that name is associated with one of the best and successful books about software engineering.
I almost sure that "The Pragmatic Programmer" is a trademark so it comes natural to associate the book with either the same authors or the same publisher as the original book.
I have no idea what the expectations are legally, but given the original “pragmatic programmer” book has been out for around for ~25 years and is extremely well known, it seems like a reasonable name collision to avoid.