Why I published a monograph

The most frequent question I've been asked this year is why I published a monograph (on pattern calculus) instead of papers in conferences and journals. The short answer is that I've tried, but almost all my conference submissions have been firmly rejected, while journal publication takes as long as book publication.

Most conferences reviewer wanted substantially more material:

theoretical papers should be more practical;
practical papers should be more theoretical;
survey papers should be more detailed;
complex papers should contain a single idea.

While I sympathise, these requests could not be met in the framework of a conference paper.

Similar problems arose in journal submissions. Reviewers for each of the two published journal papers wanted progressively more material which, after several major revisions, doubled their length. It became simpler to develop all of the material in one document, the monograph. It was also quicker: the two journal papers have each taken three years from conference presentation to journal publication, or four years from first conference submission, while the whole monograph has taken two years from first complete draft to publication, i.e. about half the time. And this while simultaneously developing a programming language.

Just to be clear, I understand why reviewers were cautious and demanding -- I might have reacted the same way -- but this is how the book came to be.