Javascript: TDG 6th edition

[Andrew]

I have a project that needs to be done in Javascript, for Reasons, but I'm
new to the language and looking for a guide. The FAQ and a search of the
clj GG archives indicates that Javascript: The Definitive Guide 5th Edition
is, or was, the least sucky option; but I note on looking for it that it's
been superceded by the 6th edition.

Has anyone read the 6th who is in a position to compare the two? Does it
suck less or more? Is there a reason to prefer the older version, perhaps
for compatibility? (I note from descriptions that the 6th describes a newer
version of the language that may not be universally supported)

Is there an online reference of reasonable quality, similar to the
documentation for Python? (I'm guessing no, but would like to be wrong)

--
Andrew

[Scott Sauyet]

Andrew wrote:
> I have a project that needs to be done in Javascript, for Reasons, but I'm
> new to the language and looking for a guide. The FAQ and a search of the
> clj GG archives indicates that Javascript: The Definitive Guide 5th Edition
> is, or was, the least sucky option; but I note on looking for it that it's
> been superceded by the 6th edition.

The FAQ is languishing. I started to work on a system to replace it.
I'm hoping that in two or three weeks, my schedule will clear up
enough to give me some time to go back to that. Thomas Lahn is also
working on one; I don't know the status of his efforts.

> Has anyone read the 6th who is in a position to compare the two? Does it
> suck less or more? Is there a reason to prefer the older version, perhaps
> for compatibility? (I note from descriptions that the 6th describes a newer
> version of the language that may not be universally supported)

Definitely choose the 6th edition. It has a number of improvements,
and much new material. He made what seems to me a very odd choice to
cover the jQuery library in the book, and I can't remember much of
that coverage, but aside from that, the choices of new material to
cover were reasonable, and I don't remember him dropping anything
important, although I've never done the side-by-side comparison (and
won't even though they're both here on my desk!)

> Is there an online reference of reasonable quality, similar to the
> documentation for Python? (I'm guessing no, but would like to be wrong)

I don't really know the Python documentation, but there is definitely
not one definitive source of API documentation, but note that the API
is quite small. The best reference site might well be MDN [1] but it
is not a tutorial.

Best of luck,

-- Scott


[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
>> Is there an online reference of reasonable quality, similar to the
>> documentation for Python? (I'm guessing no, but would like to be wrong)
>
> I don't really know the Python documentation, but there is definitely
> not one definitive source of API documentation,

The reason of which is that, AFAIK by contrast to Python, there is no
“Javascript”. I am still amazed how some people can still manage to ignore
that basic fact.

> but note that the API is quite small.

IBTD. For the next version of the ECMAScript Support Matrix (see [1] for
the current version), to date I compared 278 native language features, and
the list is still incomplete. Of those features, (unless I miscounted
slightly) only 81 were syntactical and could not reasonably be said to be
part of an API. I expect the percentage of the “API features” of the
various ECMAScript implementations to be growing as I test more features and
implementations, and as “Harmony” (ES 6-to-be) proposals are implemented.

It can only be reasonably stated that the built-in API of ECMAScript is
smaller than the built-in API of Python. This is supported by the fact that
Python has a built-in tree-like module system, while most ECMAScript
implementations (and particularly those used in Web browsers) do not. Any
modules are either implementation-specific or provided for (dynamic)
inclusion in markup documents by third parties (libraries); namespacing is
only artificial (and unfortunately is going to remain so – according to
Brendan Eich, the namespace proposal has been dropped to achieve “ECMAScript
Harmony”, and is not coming back).

> The best reference site might well be MDN [1] but it is not a tutorial.

MDN does contain a (Mozilla) _JavaScript_ tutorial, because there are more
ECMAScript implementations (than JavaScript), and more DOM implementations
than the Gecko DOM. For example, the documentation and tutorial for JScript
and the MSHTML DOM, the programming language and DOM API in Internet
Explorer-based applications, respectively, can be found in the MSDN Library
instead.

Links to reference material other than books can be found in the FAQs for
this newsgroup. [2] In fact, books are the resources that are the least
recommended there for good reasons.

_______
[1] <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
[2] <http://PointedEars.de/faq> contains a maintained, currently only
slightly modified version of <http://jibbering.com/f; the latter
is not maintained since 2010. See the changelog for details.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Andrew]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 06:46:44 -0700 (PDT), Scott Sauyet wrote:

>> Has anyone read the 6th who is in a position to compare the two? Does it
>> suck less or more? Is there a reason to prefer the older version, perhaps
>> for compatibility? (I note from descriptions that the 6th describes a newer
>> version of the language that may not be universally supported)
>
> Definitely choose the 6th edition. It has a number of improvements,
> and much new material.

Thanks. I appreciate the recommendation.

>> Is there an online reference of reasonable quality, similar to the
>> documentation for Python? (I'm guessing no, but would like to be wrong)
>
> I don't really know the Python documentation, but there is definitely
> not one definitive source of API documentation, but note that the API
> is quite small. The best reference site might well be MDN [1] but it
> is not a tutorial.

That looks like it might actually be enough for my needs. I noticed the
link in the FAQ but interpreted it as leading to Mozilla-specific reference
documentation rather than a general guide, and so passed over it.

--
Andrew

[Andrew]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:10:32 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> Is there an online reference of reasonable quality, similar to the
>>> documentation for Python? (I'm guessing no, but would like to be wrong)
>>
>> I don't really know the Python documentation, but there is definitely
>> not one definitive source of API documentation,
>
> The reason of which is that, AFAIK by contrast to Python, there is no

> ļæ½Javascriptļæ½. I am still amazed how some people can still manage to ignore
> that basic fact.

I was aware of the distinction, but given that "Javascript" is in both the
name of the group and the name of the book I was inquiring about, being
pedantic about it seemed like it would distract from the question I wanted
to ask.

> Links to reference material other than books can be found in the FAQs for
> this newsgroup. [2] In fact, books are the resources that are the least
> recommended there for good reasons.

The (apparently wrong) impression I got from the FAQ was that the online
resources listed were all either specifications, bare references, or
individual-implementation-specific information. What I wanted was a
language guide aimed at experienced programmers new to ECMAScript, and
looking to program in a manner that would work cross-browser without
unnatural acts.

Nothing listed appeared to suit, and I assumed if there was something
suitable out there it would be listed; hence I looked to books instead. If
you're updating the FAQ, it may be worth being more descriptive in the
resource section.

> _______
> [1] <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
> [2] <http://PointedEars.de/faq> contains a maintained, currently only
> slightly modified version of <http://jibbering.com/f; the latter
> is not maintained since 2010. See the changelog for details.

Just FYI, neither of those links works for me. I can ping the site and nmap
claims the appropriate ports are open, but attempts from a couple of
different browsers in a couple of different locations all hang on Waiting
for pointedears.de.

--
Andrew

[Scott Sauyet]

Andrew wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> Is there an online reference of reasonable quality, similar to the
>>>> documentation for Python? (I'm guessing no, but would like to be wrong)
>
>>> I don't really know the Python documentation, but there is definitely
>>> not one definitive source of API documentation,
>
>> The reason of which is that, AFAIK by contrast to Python, there is no

>> ´Javascript¡.  I am still amazed how some people can still manage to ignore

>> that basic fact.
>
> I was aware of the distinction, but given that "Javascript" is in both the
> name of the group and the name of the book I was inquiring about, being
> pedantic about it seemed like it would distract from the question I wanted
> to ask.

Thomas is well-known here for extremely pedantic answers. That he
also has a lot of useful knowledge only partly compensates for his
anti-social behavior.

>> Links to reference material other than books can be found in the FAQs for
>> this newsgroup. [2]  In fact, books are the resources that are the least
>> recommended there for good reasons.
>
> The (apparently wrong) impression I got from the FAQ was that the online
> resources listed were all either specifications, bare references, or
> individual-implementation-specific information. What I wanted was a
> language guide aimed at experienced programmers new to ECMAScript, and
> looking to program in a manner that would work cross-browser without
> unnatural acts.
>
> Nothing listed appeared to suit, and I assumed if there was something
> suitable out there it would be listed; hence I looked to books instead. If
> you're updating the FAQ, it may be worth being more descriptive in the
> resource section.

There are in my opinion more books worth consideration than there were
a few years ago. As well as the two mentioned in the FAQ (Flanagan's
_The Definitive Guide_ and Crockford's _The Good Parts_), I would also
recommend, with some caveats:

JavaScript Patterns, by Stoyen Stefanov
Test-Driven JavaScript, by Christian Johansen
High Performance JavaScript, by Nicholas Zakas

and, with very few caveats:

Eloquent JavaScript, by Marijn Haverbeke
Effective JavaScript, by David Herman

>> _______
>> [1] <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
>> [2] <http://PointedEars.de/faq> contains a maintained, currently only
>>     slightly modified version of <http://jibbering.com/f;the latter
>>     is not maintained since 2010.  See the changelog for details.
>
> Just FYI, neither of those links works for me. I can ping the site and nmap
> claims the appropriate ports are open, but attempts from a couple of
> different browsers in a couple of different locations all hang on Waiting
> for pointedears.de.

I don't know what's up with Thomas' site. But the link to the cljs
faq was simply mistyped:

<http://jibbering.com/faq/>

-- Scott

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> Is there an online reference of reasonable quality, similar to the
>>>>> documentation for Python? (I'm guessing no, but would like to be
>>>>> wrong)
>>>>
>>>> I don't really know the Python documentation, but there is definitely
>>>> not one definitive source of API documentation,
>>>
>>> The reason of which is that, AFAIK by contrast to Python, there is no
>>> ´Javascript¡. I am still amazed how some people can still manage to
>>> ignore that basic fact.
>>
>> I was aware of the distinction, but given that "Javascript" is in both
>> the name of the group and the name of the book I was inquiring about,
>> being pedantic about it seemed like it would distract from the question I
>> wanted to ask.
>
> Thomas is well-known here for extremely pedantic answers. That he
> also has a lot of useful knowledge only partly compensates for his
> anti-social behavior.

That is a luser attitude. There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about
telling people the truth. There *really* is no “Javascript” as there is
Python, that is

1. There is no programming language of that name, and

2. the language commonly subsumed (by newcomers) under that name actually is
*several* *different* languages, implementations of a common language
Specification, ECMAScript.

It is important to know and accept that fact if you want to get serious with
these language*s*. Unlike Python, if you want to get serious, you do not
learn “Javascript” once and for all; you better learn JavaScript, JScript,
V8 JavaScript, Opera ECMAScript, and KDE JavaScript, among others. And then
you better learn the environment-dependent APIs that can be used with those
languages, like the several DOM APIs. because it is only the host
environment that enables these programming languages to be useful. All of
those are on-topic here.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

>>> Links to reference material other than books can be found in the FAQs
>>> for this newsgroup. [2] In fact, books are the resources that are the
>>> least recommended there for good reasons.
>>
>> The (apparently wrong) impression I got from the FAQ was that the online
>> resources listed were all either specifications, bare references, or
>> individual-implementation-specific information. What I wanted was a
>> language guide aimed at experienced programmers new to ECMAScript, and
>> looking to program in a manner that would work cross-browser without
>> unnatural acts.
>>
>> Nothing listed appeared to suit, and I assumed if there was something
>> suitable out there it would be listed; hence I looked to books instead.
>> If you're updating the FAQ, it may be worth being more descriptive in the
>> resource section.

Or you may want to read it again, after you accepted the fact that there is
no “Javascript” For the references that I mentioned are there.

It is a pity that the original FAQ chose to use the “javascript” misnomer
almost arbitrarily. Your not finding the relevant references is yet another
indication to me that the term should be replaced in the new FAQ, and the
situation explained, as the current term is more confusing to beginners than
helpful.

> There are in my opinion more books worth consideration than there were
> a few years ago. As well as the two mentioned in the FAQ (Flanagan's
> _The Definitive Guide_ and Crockford's _The Good Parts_), I would also
> recommend, with some caveats:
>
> JavaScript Patterns, by Stoyen Stefanov

_Stoyan_, I think.

> Test-Driven JavaScript, by Christian Johansen
> High Performance JavaScript, by Nicholas Zakas
>
> and, with very few caveats:
>
> Eloquent JavaScript, by Marijn Haverbeke
> Effective JavaScript, by David Herman

But on which *grounds* do you recommend these books? If they are actually
worth recommending, if you can *convince* me/us that they are good and can
say why (or why not), I shall add them to the FAQ for comp.lang.javascript
(with a *specific* caveat, if necessary).

>>> _______
>>> [1] <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
>>> [2] <http://PointedEars.de/faq> contains a maintained, currently only
>>> slightly modified version of <http://jibbering.com/f;the latter
>>> is not maintained since 2010. See the changelog for details.
>>
>> Just FYI, neither of those links works for me. I can ping the site and
>> nmap claims the appropriate ports are open, but attempts from a couple of
>> different browsers in a couple of different locations all hang on Waiting
>> for pointedears.de.
>
> I don't know what's up with Thomas' site.

It was working when I posted that and it is working now (uncached) without
my intervention. It may not have worked for reasons currently unknown to me
while I was out for the day. On the other hand, there could also be yet
another Google Groups bug.

> But the link to the cljs faq was simply mistyped:
>
> <http://jibbering.com/faq/>

That is not a link, but a URI, and the cljs FAQ still is outdated; otherwise
ACK. However, by contrast that site is known here for being offline
frequently (much more often than my site) which is another reason for my the
fork.

[Scott Sauyet]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:

>> Thomas is well-known here for extremely pedantic answers.  That he
>> also has a lot of useful knowledge only partly compensates for his
>> anti-social behavior.
>
> That is a luser attitude.  There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about

> telling people the truth. [ ... ]

Actually, it often is both pedantic and anti-social. Are you the sort
who tells parents your unvarnished opinion of their offspring?

One reasonable definition of "pedantic" (from [1]) is "marked by a
narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial
aspects." Almost by definition, being pedantic involves telling the
truth, or at least what one sees as the truth. The trouble is that
the truth being described is overly concerned with minutiae, sometimes
to the detriment of the conversation.

> If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I'm not even slightly singed. But even after many years of listening
to you recite your mantra, I'm not convinced that using "Javascript"
or "javascript" in discussions here has any harmful effects.

>> There are in my opinion more books worth consideration than there were
>> a few years ago.  As well as the two mentioned in the FAQ (Flanagan's
>> _The Definitive Guide_ and Crockford's _The Good Parts_), I would also
>> recommend, with some caveats:
>
>>     JavaScript Patterns, by Stoyen Stefanov
>
> _Stoyan_, I think.

Correct. Thank you.

>>     Test-Driven JavaScript, by Christian Johansen
>>     High Performance JavaScript, by Nicholas Zakas
>
>> and, with very few caveats:
>
>>     Eloquent JavaScript, by Marijn Haverbeke
>>     Effective JavaScript, by David Herman
>
> But on which *grounds* do you recommend these books?  If they are actually
> worth recommending, if you can *convince* me/us that they are good and can
> say why (or why not), I shall add them to the FAQ for comp.lang.javascript
> (with a *specific* caveat, if necessary).

I would actually like to find time to write reviews, at least for
Herman, Haverbeke, and Johansen. But that won't happen in the next
few weeks at least. This will not stop me from posting
recommendations when people are looking for worthwhile books. Do you
have any other recommendations for worthwhile books?


>> [ ... ]

>> I don't know what's up with Thomas' site.
>
> It was working when I posted that and it is working now (uncached) without
> my intervention.  It may not have worked for reasons currently unknown to me
> while I was out for the day.  On the other hand, there could also be yet
> another Google Groups bug.

It wasn't the latter. It didn't work for me, coming in from
bookmarks.

> > But the link to the cljs faq was simply mistyped:
>
> >     <http://jibbering.com/faq/>
>
> That is not a link, but a URI, and the cljs FAQ still is outdated; otherwise
> ACK.  However, by contrast that site is known here for being offline
> frequently (much more often than my site) which is another reason for my the
> fork.

_______
[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedantic

-- Scott

[Scott Sauyet]

Speaking of pedantry...

-- Scott

[John Harris]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 19:48:06 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Point...@web.de> wrote:


<snip>

> Unlike Python, if you want to get serious, you do not
>learn �Javascript� once and for all; you better learn JavaScript,

<snip>

Not long ago Thomas declared that the name "JavaScript" has now become
a generic name. Therefore, by Thomas's well known rule, there is no
such language as JavaScript. Therefore he is totally wrong when he
tells people to learn JavaScript.

Incidentally, I wonder why Thomas hasn't convinced the Mozilla people
that claiming to implement JavaScript is so terribly wrong.

John

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> Thomas is well-known here for extremely pedantic answers. That he
>>> also has a lot of useful knowledge only partly compensates for his
>>> anti-social behavior.
>>
>> That is a luser attitude. There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about
>> telling people the truth. [ ... ]
>
> Actually, it often is both pedantic and anti-social. Are you the sort
> who tells parents your unvarnished opinion of their offspring?
>
> One reasonable definition of "pedantic" (from [1]) is "marked by a
> narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial
> aspects." Almost by definition, being pedantic involves telling the
> truth, or at least what one sees as the truth. The trouble is that
> the truth being described is overly concerned with minutiae, sometimes
> to the detriment of the conversation.

Unfortunately, apparently it is not trivial that here is no “Javascript”.
If it was trivial, probably more people would be able to see the fact, and
consider the different and differing ECMAScript implementations that they
are actually using.

>> If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>
> I'm not even slightly singed. But even after many years of listening
> to you recite your mantra, I'm not convinced that using "Javascript"
> or "javascript" in discussions here has any harmful effects.

Pardon? Is not this thread, in which the OP reports that they could not
find the relevant material, despite it being referred (under the proper
names) in the FAQ, living proof that it has harmful effects?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Posting to Usenet via Google Groups, i. e. on the Web, where URIs become
links through the interface, can you even know the difference between link
and URI?

[Scott Sauyet]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:

>>>> Thomas is well-known here for extremely pedantic answers.  That he
>>>> also has a lot of useful knowledge only partly compensates for his
>>>> anti-social behavior.
>
>>> That is a luser attitude.  There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about
>>> telling people the truth. [ ... ]
>
>> Actually, it often is both pedantic and anti-social.  Are you the sort
>> who tells parents your unvarnished opinion of their offspring?
>
>> One reasonable definition of "pedantic" (from [1]) is "marked by a
>> narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial
>> aspects."  Almost by definition, being pedantic involves telling the
>> truth, or at least what one sees as the truth.  The trouble is that
>> the truth being described is overly concerned with minutiae, sometimes
>> to the detriment of the conversation.
>
> Unfortunately, apparently it is not trivial that here is no “Javascript”.
> If it was trivial, probably more people would be able to see the fact, and
> consider the different and differing ECMAScript implementations that they
> are actually using.

Or perhaps fewer people than you would like find this relevant.
Certainly there are times when the ES engine or the specific
implementation of a particular API layered atop such an engine makes a
difference. In those cases, it's quite easy to specify the
environment in question. For many of us, though, those cases are not
particularly common.

Your "apparently it is not trivial" is a statement of your opinion,
one which you promote here often. It is not a statement of
indisputable fact, and there are many here who disagree.

>>> If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>
>> I'm not even slightly singed.  But even after many years of listening
>> to you recite your mantra, I'm not convinced that using "Javascript"
>> or "javascript" in discussions here has any harmful effects.
>
> Pardon?  Is not this thread, in which the OP reports that they could not
> find the relevant material, despite it being referred (under the proper
> names) in the FAQ, living proof that it has harmful effects?

Not at all. Had the OP searched for books on ECMAScript
implementations, he would have had no more useful results, IMHO.

-- Scott

[Scott Sauyet]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>> But the link to the cljs faq was simply mistyped:
>>>> <http://jibbering.com/faq/>
>
>>> That is not a link, but a URI
>
>> Speaking of pedantry...
>
> Posting to Usenet via Google Groups, i. e. on the Web, where URIs become
> links through the interface, can you even know the difference between link
> and URI?

Yes.

-- Scott

[Cezary Tomczyk]

7 may 2013 19:48:06 UTC+2 user Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:

[...]

> > But the link to the cljs faq was simply mistyped:
> > <http://jibbering.com/faq/>
>

> That is not a link, but a URI[...]

For me it's a URL. Following by "[...] An http URI is a URL. [...]" (source: http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/#contemporary)

--
Cezary Tomczyk
http://www.ctomczyk.pl/
Temporary posting from Google Groups

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Cezary Tomczyk wrote:

> 7 may 2013 19:48:06 UTC+2 user Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
> [...]
>> > But the link to the cljs faq was simply mistyped:
>> > <http://jibbering.com/faq/>
>>
>> That is not a link, but a URI[...]
>
> For me it's a URL. Following by "[...] An http URI is a URL. [...]"
> (source: http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/#contemporary)

Whereas “contemporary” means “as of 2001“, and:

| Further according to the contemporary view, the term "URL" does not refer
| to a formal partition of URI space; rather, URL is a useful but informal
| concept: […]

It is a matter of opinion if you want to use the more general, standardized
(RFC 3986), formal term, or the more specific, informal concept. It is
_not_ a matter of opinion if, out of ignorance, you confuse a concept
([hyper]link) with the means by which it can be realized (URI/URL) in
specific media (Web).

A NetNews posting is *plain text*; it cannot contain hyperlinks, but it can
contain URIs/URLs. It is only the viewing software that might create a link
from a URI/URL, or it might not. Ignoring that difference is ignoring that
Web archives/interfaces like Google Groups do not represent the original,
intended way of using NetNews, and therefore fall short of making full use
of its features (bugs in GG aside).

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>>> Thomas is well-known here for extremely pedantic answers. That he
>>>>> also has a lot of useful knowledge only partly compensates for his
>>>>> anti-social behavior.
>>>>
>>>> That is a luser attitude. There is nothing pedantic or anti-social
>>>> about telling people the truth. [ ... ]
>>>
>>> Actually, it often is both pedantic and anti-social. Are you the sort
>>> who tells parents your unvarnished opinion of their offspring?
>>>
>>> One reasonable definition of "pedantic" (from [1]) is "marked by a
>>> narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial
>>> aspects." Almost by definition, being pedantic involves telling the
>>> truth, or at least what one sees as the truth. The trouble is that
>>> the truth being described is overly concerned with minutiae, sometimes
>>> to the detriment of the conversation.
>>
>> Unfortunately, apparently it is not trivial that here is no “Javascript”.
>> If it was trivial, probably more people would be able to see the fact,
>> and consider the different and differing ECMAScript implementations that
>> they are actually using.
>
> Or perhaps fewer people than you would like find this relevant.

Yes, there are too many who are ignorant of facts. One can only hope that
arguing repeatedly against self-chosen ignorance can reduce that number,
lest we end up in “Idiocracy”.

> Certainly there are times when the ES engine or the specific
> implementation of a particular API layered atop such an engine makes a
> difference. In those cases, it's quite easy to specify the
> environment in question. For many of us, though, those cases are not
> particularly common.

Argument at ignorance. Must be bliss not knowing that you actually do not
know.

> Your "apparently it is not trivial" is a statement of your opinion,
> one which you promote here often. It is not a statement of
> indisputable fact, and there are many here who disagree.

No, it is not just a statement of my opinion.

>>>> If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>>
>>> I'm not even slightly singed. But even after many years of listening
>>> to you recite your mantra, I'm not convinced that using "Javascript"
>>> or "javascript" in discussions here has any harmful effects.
>>
>> Pardon? Is not this thread, in which the OP reports that they could not
>> find the relevant material, despite it being referred (under the proper
>> names) in the FAQ, living proof that it has harmful effects?
>
> Not at all. Had the OP searched for books on ECMAScript
> implementations, he would have had no more useful results, IMHO.

But had they searched for “JavaScript”, ”JScript”, and so on in the FAQ,
*knowing* (by *letting* *them* *know* explicitly) that there is not a single
”Javascript” or “javascript”, but that there are several *different*
ECMAScript implementations with *specific* *implementors* and *names*, they
would have had more useful results. *That* is the crux of the matter that
you *choose* to ignore.

[Scott Sauyet]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:

>>> Unfortunately, apparently it is not trivial that here is no “Javascript”.
>>> If it was trivial, probably more people would be able to see the fact,
>>> and consider the different and differing ECMAScript implementations that
>>> they are actually using.

>> Or perhaps fewer people than you would like find this relevant.

> Yes, there are too many who are ignorant of facts.  One can only hope that
> arguing repeatedly against self-chosen ignorance can reduce that number,
> lest we end up in “Idiocracy”.

Oh no, not at all. There are many things one can hope for.

One can hope that those repeatedly arguing the same trivial points
will eventually recognize the overwhelming chorus of negative response
as well-reasoned critique and not willful ignorance.

One can hope that the word "pedantic" will finally come to have
meaning for certain contributors to the discussions here.

Once can hope that being associated, even casually, with the
Mentiflexes of the world would give pause to those who keep sounding
the same note over and over without ever convincing anyone.

One can hope that even if those with the strident voices don't change
their minds, that they'd do what they do on other subjects and simply
mention that the material has been covered before rather than
rehashing it on a continual basis.

Or one can simply root for the windmill:

<http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>

>> Certainly there are times when the ES engine or the specific
>> implementation of a particular API layered atop such an engine makes a
>> difference.  In those cases, it's quite easy to specify the
>> environment in question.  For many of us, though, those cases are not
>> particularly common.

> Argument at ignorance.  Must be bliss not knowing that you actually do not
> know.

And yours must be such a burden, believing you know so much more than
everyone around you.

>> Your "apparently it is not trivial" is a statement of your opinion,
>> one which you promote here often.  It is not a statement of
>> indisputable fact, and there are many here who disagree.
>
> No, it is not just a statement of my opinion.

Yes, it is.

>>>>> If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

>>>> I'm not even slightly singed.  But even after many years of listening
>>>> to you recite your mantra, I'm not convinced that using "Javascript"
>>>> or "javascript" in discussions here has any harmful effects.

>>> Pardon?  Is not this thread, in which the OP reports that they could not
>>> find the relevant material, despite it being referred (under the proper
>>> names) in the FAQ, living proof that it has harmful effects?

>> Not at all.  Had the OP searched for books on ECMAScript
>> implementations, he would have had no more useful results, IMHO.

> But had they searched for “JavaScript”, ”JScript”, and so on in the FAQ,
> *knowing* (by *letting* *them* *know* explicitly) that there is not a single
> ”Javascript” or “javascript”, but that there are several *different*
> ECMAScript implementations with *specific* *implementors* and *names*, they
> would have had more useful results.  *That* is the crux of the matter that
> you *choose* to ignore.

What results would the OP have found? What good sources of
documentation would you have suggested had the OP used the terms you
prefer? It's my contention that there are very few good sources of
information about ECMAScript implementations, individually or
collectively, to be found. I did recommend a few books, all of which
would be more easily found searching with "Javascript" than with
"ECMAScript", and I recommended MDN, which, although of course is
specific to JavaScript, also serves for many as the best all-around on-
line reference to the collection of (browser) ECMAScript
implementations, as it usually details the differences between major
implementations. Again, that would be found most easily searching for
"JavaScript" (and generally capitalization doesn't matter much in
searching.) I simply don't buy it.

-- Scott

[Scott Sauyet]

Tim Streater wrote:
> Scott Sauyet

>> Or one can simply root for the windmill:
>
>>     <http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>
>

> That about sums it up.

I should note that I am not the creator of that image. I do not know
who created it. I first saw it when Stefan Weiss posted a reference
to it in comp.lang.javascript last December:

<news:ka5l59$dtq$1...@news.albasani.net>
<https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/
d43124b39773bfac>

-- Scott

[Luuk]

On 07-05-2013 19:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> That is a luser attitude. There is nothing pedantic or anti-social about

> telling people the truth. There *really* is no “Javascript” .........

from http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/es-matrix/:
[quoot]
In fact, there is no “javascript”; there is JavaScript.
[/quoot]


Can you explain?

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <timstreater-94EA6D.16540009052013@news.
individual.net>, Thu, 9 May 2013 16:54:01, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> posted:

>
>He thinks he is Mozart and we're all Salieri. In fact he's the foolish
>emperor and everyone else is a mixture of M and S.
>

He's more like someone in a fortunately-lost fragment of G & S.

But his existence has given me, since November last, greater pleasure in
the morning while looking at the middle of the Court and Social page of
the Daily Telegraph.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. Mail, see Homepage. BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
<http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ;
NOT <http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/>: news:borland.* Guidelines

[MC]

Scott...
Do you think they will classify a disorder in the next book on
psychological behavior for people that like to ABUSE others in a textual
Internet setting to make themselves feel superior to others?
Pointy can be example #1

I don't understand why he can't be civil to others as he has a lot of
knowledge and is almost always on target...but like a bad rash.

[MC]

On 5/10/2013 2:03 PM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message<timstreater-94EA6D.16540009052013@news.
> individual.net>, Thu, 9 May 2013 16:54:01, Tim Streater
> <timst...@greenbee.net> posted:
>
>>
>> He thinks he is Mozart and we're all Salieri. In fact he's the foolish
>> emperor and everyone else is a mixture of M and S.
>>
>

> He's more like someone in a fortunately-lost fragment of G& S.

>
> But his existence has given me, since November last, greater pleasure in
> the morning while looking at the middle of the Court and Social page of
> the Daily Telegraph.
>

I looked for a Court and Social section and could not find it online. Do
you have a link? Maybe its behind a paywall?

[Andrew Poulos]

Why do you guys spend so much of your time discussing what you believe
are flaws in someone else's personality? Is there a Miss Congeniality
prize to be had?

Andrew Poulos

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I'll give you a hint: When was the last time any of those “characters”
posted anything constructive, let alone on-topic here?


Regards,

[John Harris]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:40:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Point...@web.de> wrote:

>Andrew Poulos wrote:

<snip>

>> Why do you guys spend so much of your time discussing what you believe
>> are flaws in someone else's personality? Is there a Miss Congeniality
>> prize to be had?
>
>I'll give you a hint: When was the last time any of those �characters�
>posted anything constructive, let alone on-topic here?

I'll give you another hint : when was the last time that Thomas
admitted that one of his opinions or preferences was not an immutable
law of nature ?

And another hint : when was the last time that Thomas refrained from
vilifying someone who did not conform to a Thomas opinion or
preference ?

John

[Andrew Poulos]

On 18/05/2013 7:16 PM, John Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:40:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> Why do you guys spend so much of your time discussing what you believe
>>> are flaws in someone else's personality? Is there a Miss Congeniality
>>> prize to be had?
>>

>> I'll give you a hint: When was the last time any of those �characters�

>> posted anything constructive, let alone on-topic here?
>
> I'll give you another hint : when was the last time that Thomas
> admitted that one of his opinions or preferences was not an immutable
> law of nature ?
>
> And another hint : when was the last time that Thomas refrained from
> vilifying someone who did not conform to a Thomas opinion or
> preference ?

You're asking me to use aspersions as "reasons" to question why someone
else vilifies?

Let me know who gets the ribbon in this year's contest.

Andrew Poulos

[MC]

On 5/18/2013 4:16 AM, John Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:40:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> Why do you guys spend so much of your time discussing what you believe
>>> are flaws in someone else's personality? Is there a Miss Congeniality
>>> prize to be had?
>>

>> I'll give you a hint: When was the last time any of those �characters�

>> posted anything constructive, let alone on-topic here?
>
> I'll give you another hint : when was the last time that Thomas
> admitted that one of his opinions or preferences was not an immutable
> law of nature ?
>
> And another hint : when was the last time that Thomas refrained from
> vilifying someone who did not conform to a Thomas opinion or
> preference ?
>
> John

Ditto,
Its counter-productive to give an opinion (always presented as fact),
and text terrorize them. Most of us have been his victims, some more
than once. I love the help that Jan, David, Scott and others give. But I
always ~cringe~ when I see a reply with pointy's name on it. His opinion
is usually very knowledgeable...but he seems to take a perverse pleasure
in seeing how far he can berate people inline with it.

MC

PS. Jan and David are AWESOME and I am so grateful for the opportunity
to reach out to them...just dread it at the same time

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <9e16e$51965490$6214769e$10...@ALLTEL.NE
T>, Fri, 17 May 2013 11:04:37, MC <ne...@aisus.com> posted:

Any reputable newsagent will sell the paper to you; any good public
library will subscribe.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[Joao Rodrigues]

On 06/05/2013 13:10, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> MDN does contain a (Mozilla) _JavaScript_ tutorial, because there are more
> ECMAScript implementations (than JavaScript), and more DOM implementations
> than the Gecko DOM. For example, the documentation and tutorial for JScript
> and the MSHTML DOM, the programming language and DOM API in Internet
> Explorer-based applications, respectively, can be found in the MSDN Library
> instead.

Interestingly, Microsoft has adopted the name "JavaScript" for their
ECMAScript 5th edition implementation as of IE 10:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/d1et7k7c(v=vs.94).aspx>

And they are developing a new programming language named "TypeScript".
Around 50 people are working on it, such as Anders Hejlsberg (the
creator of the C# language) and many others:
<http://www.zdnet.com/who-built-microsoft-typescript-and-why-7000005206/>


--
Joao Rodrigues

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Joao Rodrigues wrote:

> On 06/05/2013 13:10, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> MDN does contain a (Mozilla) _JavaScript_ tutorial, because there are
>> more ECMAScript implementations (than JavaScript), and more DOM
>> implementations
>> than the Gecko DOM. For example, the documentation and tutorial for
>> JScript and the MSHTML DOM, the programming language and DOM API in
>> Internet Explorer-based applications, respectively, can be found in the
>> MSDN Library instead.
>
> Interestingly, Microsoft has adopted the name "JavaScript" for their
> ECMAScript 5th edition implementation as of IE 10:
> <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/d1et7k7c(v=vs.94).aspx>

I/we here know. MSDN calls it “JavaScript for Internet Explorer (10)”, but
ScriptEngine() still says “JScript”; rightly so for the latter, but
unnecessarily confusing to newcomers as it still is a different programming
language with syntax not supported by any other implementation.

> And they are developing a new programming language named "TypeScript".
> Around 50 people are working on it, such as Anders Hejlsberg (the
> creator of the C# language) and many others:
> <http://www.zdnet.com/who-built-microsoft-typescript-and-why-7000005206/>

Interesting.