Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review). This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the world's shortests books).
I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he _is_ smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of JavaScript and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like how to play with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with. With what Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_ javascript on the web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully implemented and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of this is an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all about.
Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary to Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.
> Crockford'sJavaScript,The Good Parts(a book review). > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the > world's > shortests books).
> I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he > _is_ > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book onthe good partsofJavaScript > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like > how to play > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with. > With what > Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_javascripton the > web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
> Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully > implemented > and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of > this is > an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** whatJavaScriptis all > about.
> Fortunately, I have read about 20 goodJavaScriptbooks (and contrary > to > Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent > examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.
P.S. OTHER rather recent books I found plenty of reason to enjoy (good examples make good books):
Pro JavaScript Design Patterns by Harmes & Dias (Apress,2008) jQuery in Action by Bibeault & Kayz (Manning, 2008) The Art and Science of JavaScript by Adams et al (Sitepoint, 2008) JavaScript Phrasebook by Wenz (Sams, 2007) Pro JavaScript Techniques by Resig (Apress, 2006) Simply JavaScript by Yank and Adams (Sitepoint, 2007) CSS, DHTML, & Ajax (4th ed.) by Teague (Peachpit, 2007) JavaScript, the Definitive Guide (5th ed.) by Flanagan (O’Reilly, 2006) (I also read and worked through the earlier 4th ed., 2002) The JavaScript Anthology 101 Essential Tips, … by Edwards and Adams (Sitepoint, 2006) JavaScript Bible (5th ed.) by Goodman and Morrison (Wiley, 2004) and earlier editions.
If you don't like any of those books, you must be nuts. Good examples make good books.
and an oldie I still do not regret having read: JavaScript Application Cookbook by Bradenbaugh (O’Reilly, 1999) (an oldie, great in its day; still helpful)
lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review). > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the > world's > shortests books).
> I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he > _is_ > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of > JavaScript > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like > how to play > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with. > With what > Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_ > javascript on the > web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
> Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully > implemented > and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of > this is > an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all > about.
Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code* in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach coders how to make effective use of the *language*.
The language itself does NOT include any CSS, DOM, BOM or whatever, and there is at least one fairly popular implementation that doesn't address CSS etc at all. See: actionscript.
Things are not as bad as back in the 90s, but in the whole DOM/CSS/BOM bag there is still an unreasonably large lump of compatibility crap to deal with, and putting all that into a book about "good coding practices" would dilute the good bits probably to the point of making them footnotes.
> lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review). > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the > > world's > > shortests books).
> > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he > > _is_ > > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of > > JavaScript > > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like > > how to play > > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with. > > With what > > Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_ > > javascript on the > > web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
> > Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully > > implemented > > and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of > > this is > > an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all > > about.
> Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as > far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code* > in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach > coders how to make effective use of the *language*.
> The language itself does NOT include any CSS, DOM, BOM or whatever, > and there is at least one fairly popular implementation that doesn't > address CSS etc at all. See: actionscript.
> Things are not as bad as back in the 90s, but in the whole DOM/CSS/BOM > bag there is still an unreasonably large lump of compatibility crap to > deal with, and putting all that into a book about "good coding > practices" would dilute the good bits probably to the point of making > them footnotes.
Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript functions for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS are _javascript_ functions. AND, they are what allow much of the communication that is JavaScript in action. Examples:
GetElementById(string which is element id); createElement(string which is element type); [element to appendTo].appendChild(variable representing new element); document.getElementById(elementName).value = variable or string; document.getElementById(elementName)style.display = "none"; document.getElementById(elementName).innerHTML = "hi";
Without such stuff there is NO javascript program that actually does anything in the browsers. NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you are happy with alerts. Really. Get real.
lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript > functions > for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS > are > _javascript_ functions.
[ blah blah blah ]
> NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you > are > happy with alerts. Really. Get real.
I wasn't talking about browsers. Anyway, what makes you think alerts are in the language?
regardless of the title of the book, it's about ecmascript:
> lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > > Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript > > functions > > for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS > > are > > _javascript_ functions.
> [ blah blah blah ]
> > NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you > > are > > happy with alerts. Really. Get real.
> I wasn't talking about browsers. Anyway, what makes you think alerts > are in the language?
> regardless of the title of the book, it's about ecmascript:
Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book. It is about a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small subset). If you don't like reading books that show realistic examples, you might be confused. But, Crockford is way less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way covers JavaScript.
If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing. If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you can put Crockford's principles to good use and learn much, much, much, much more of JavaScript and do everything.
Good time to catch up now before the new revision of ecmascript comes out.
lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book.
I never claimed you did not.
> It is about a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small > subset). If you don't like reading books that show realistic > examples, you might be confused.
Or maybe I just don't like browsers. Please learn the difference between languages and libraries.
> But, Crockford is way less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way > covers JavaScript.
So what if he doesn't cover all of the browser model? Flanagan makes sweeping and incorrect claims about the language. Personally, I'd think you need at least both. Until someone comes along to write a complete and correct book.
> If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing. > If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you > can put > Crockford's principles to good use > and learn much, much, much, much more of JavaScript and do > everything.
So we agree you'd need both, then.
> Good time to catch up > now before the new revision of ecmascript comes out.
Good luck waiting for the MS implementation. Me, I need to get work done today.
> lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review). > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the > > world's > > shortests books).
> > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he > > _is_ > > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of > > JavaScript > > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like > > how to play > > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with. [...] > Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as > far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code* > in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach > coders how to make effective use of the *language*.
I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript". :-)
Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if this book helps fix that, it can only do good.
As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges. Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is about 150 pages. Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors, just style or content gripes).
> On Aug 19, 7:26 am, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:
> > lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review). > > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the > > > world's > > > shortests books).
> > > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he > > > _is_ > > > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of > > > JavaScript > > > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like > > > how to play > > > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with. > [...] > > Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as > > far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code* > > in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach > > coders how to make effective use of the *language*.
> I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been > called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the > same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript". :-)
> Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't > bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if > this book helps fix that, it can only do good.
> As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges. > Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in > about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is > about 150 pages. Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the > negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like > his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors, > just style or content gripes).
> -- > Rob- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period. So, is Flanagan's book. It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is about something else. IT IS NOT. Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable because it does not cover enough of the langauge to use it. Flanagan does (to say the least).
Crockford does some things better. True. That is his only claim to fame. After you know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a few aspects as he covers a small subset. Otherwise your know is less than incomplete. It is inadequate and you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of JavaScript programmer. That is the truth.
Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes. It is not enough to do anything by itself. For any purpose for which ECMAScript aka JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*. Of course, those ignorant of JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's (and Crockford's) YUI, but you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real specifics of the language and it will be a crutch.
> On Aug 18, 6:21 pm, RobG <rg...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 7:26 am, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:
> > > lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review). > > > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the > > > > world's > > > > shortests books).
> > > > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he > > > > _is_ > > > > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of > > > > JavaScript > > > > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like > > > > how to play > > > > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with. > > [...] > > > Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as > > > far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code* > > > in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach > > > coders how to make effective use of the *language*.
> > I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been > > called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the > > same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript". :-)
> > Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't > > bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if > > this book helps fix that, it can only do good.
> > As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges. > > Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in > > about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is > > about 150 pages. Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the > > negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like > > his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors, > > just style or content gripes).
> > -- > > Rob- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period. So, > is Flanagan's > book. It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is > about something > else. IT IS NOT. Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable > because it > does not cover enough of the langauge to use it. Flanagan does (to > say the least).
> Crockford does some things better. True. That is his only claim to > fame. After you > know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a > few aspects as > he covers a small subset. Otherwise your know is less than > incomplete. It is > inadequate and you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of > JavaScript > programmer. That is the truth.
> Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes. > It is > not enough to do anything by itself. For any purpose for which > ECMAScript aka > JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*. Of course, those > ignorant of > JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's > (and Crockford's) > YUI, but > you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real > specifics of the > language and it will be a crutch.- Hide quoted text -
> Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review). > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the > world's > shortests books).
It was not as good a book as I was hoping for.
It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the grammer. It missed out instanceof too.
Read it quickly then passed it on to a friend to read.
Pro Javascript Techniques was a bit crappy too, with things like 'self' used but not explained. Inconsistent code in examples calling functions that were not given.
Pro Javascript Design Patterns seems better, just started reading it.
> > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review). > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the > > world's > > shortests books).
> It was not as good a book as I was hoping for.
> It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the grammer. > It missed out instanceof too.
> Read it quickly then passed it on to a friend to read.
> Pro Javascript Techniques was a bit crappy too, with things like 'self' used > but not explained. Inconsistent code in examples calling functions that were > not given.
> Pro Javascript Design Patterns seems better, just started reading it.
> Aaron
Aaron
The Pro JavaScript Design Patterns book is a better book. Much more there on how to do things right. Its coverage of the language, like Crockford's , is partial & minimal (because the book is not out to cover the language, but show examples of uses of design patterns with the JS language!). Unfortunately, Crockford was not as clear that it was really just that sort of thing *he* was doing too!!; in fact, he kind of pretends to be covering the "good parts of the language" while he misses at least half (or more) of any "good parts" necessary just to use the language -- thus misses likely much more than half of what could be considered "good".
From what I can tell Crockford is just a bit "off" (irrational and pompous). He decided in 2001 there was no other "good book" and he has never changed his mind (old foggy). And he apparently has missed MANY !!: Here's some, each of which would do any JavaScripter MORE good than his short limited book (I guarantee it):
Professional Ajax (2nd ed.) by Zakas, McPeak, & Fawcett (Wrox, 2007) Pro JavaScript Design Patterns by Harmes & Dias (Apress,2008) jQuery in Action by Bibeault & Kayz (Manning, 2008) The Art and Science of JavaScript by Adams et al (Sitepoint, 2008) JavaScript Phrasebook by Wenz (Sams, 2007) Pro JavaScript Techniques by Resig (Apress, 2006) Simply JavaScript by Yank and Adams (Sitepoint, 2007) CSS, DHTML, & Ajax (4th ed.) by Teague (Peachpit, 2007) JavaScript, the Definitive Guide (5th ed.) by Flanagan (O’Reilly, 2006) (I also read and worked through the earlier 4th ed., 2002) The JavaScript Anthology 101 Essential Tips, … by Edwards and Adams (Sitepoint, 2006) JavaScript Bible (5th ed.) by Goodman and Morrison (Wiley, 2004) and earlier editions
On Aug 18, 5:19 pm, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period.
So he didn't drift off the topic he selected. Good for him and good for his editor.
> So, is Flanagan's book.
Flangan's book is not about JavaScript "period". Flanagan's book is about JavaScript, browser scripting and some applications outside of the browser.
> It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is > about something else. IT IS NOT. > Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable > because it does not cover enough of the langauge to use it.
Crockford's book is not meant to be read by a beginner. He states that somewhere. I wish there were more books like Crockford's where a thoughtful JavaScript programmer has written down lessons learned and some reasons why.
There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.
> Flanagan does (to say the least).
There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.
> Crockford does some things better. True.
Great. Would you rather he had not shared them?
> That is his only claim to fame. After you > know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a > few aspects as he covers a small subset.
I believe that is exactly why he wrote the book. Again it seems like he achieved his goal.
> Otherwise your know is less than incomplete. It is inadequate and > you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of > JavaScript programmer. That is the truth.
You seem to have missed the point of his book and want to publicly display that you have.
> Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes. > It is not enough to do anything by itself.
It makes for a nice summary of his writing and videos on the web.
> For any purpose for which > ECMAScript aka > JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*.
JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover it then.
> Of course, those ignorant of > JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's > (and Crockford's) YUI,
There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.
> but > you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real > specifics of the > language and it will be a crutch.
The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information about JavaScript.
I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own practices.
> The Pro JavaScript Design Patterns book is a better book. Much more > there on > how to do things right.
You've provided no example of such 'right' programming, so we have no way of assessing what you think is right or wrong.
> From what I can tell Crockford is just a bit "off" (irrational and > pompous).
What does your personal judgment about Doug's personality have to do with the book?
> He decided in 2001 there was no other "good book" and he has never > changed > his mind (old foggy).
[snip]
The only thing that is 'foggy' is your understanding of what EcmaScript is. You can potentially change this by reading the ECMA-262 manual, online, for free. There's an HTML edition on bclary.com.
As Joost and Peter pointed out to you, the books you listed are mostly related to browser scripting and JavaScript libraries. I see that your book selection includes a book of how to use jQuery.
> But, how can he write a book on the good parts of > JavaScript > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird.
Because it's about *JavaScript*. And he probably didn't want to write zillions of pages dealing with all those browser peculiarities. And add errata every other week. And still being "incomplete". And just doing a rehash of all the ressources found on the web.
> Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary > to > Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent > examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.
Interesting. I haven't read another book than Crockford's and still can write decent JS manipulating the DOM.
However, Crockford had me convinced to get off all this pseude-class-based JS style. And I'm pretty sure my JS is now shorter, faster and more JS than before.
> It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the > grammer.
As he says: He want's to concentrate on a small subset of JS. The Good Parts. And leave out all the stuff he deems a burden and/or superfluous. He also leaves out all String methods. Who cares? Read about them on any readily available WWW ressource like mozilla.org.
> Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book. It is about > a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small subset).
Cool. That's what I bought it for. To learn about the Good Parts of Java/ECMAScript. I wasn't disappointed.
> If you don't like reading books > that show realistic examples, you might be confused. But, Crockford is > way > less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way covers JavaScript.
He covers the Good Parts of it.
> If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.
Crockford never claims to do that.
> If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you > can put > Crockford's principles to good use
On Aug 18, 8:21 pm, Peter Michaux <petermich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 5:19 pm, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.
I agree. You must read several books, preferable loaded with working examples. Nothing like that in Crockford, so what he offers is something else. Style advice and principles of good coding, and that is all. Very little, esp. since dealing with things that AFFECT the UI is a huge topic area not dealt with at all by him.
[snip]
> > For any purpose for which > > ECMAScript aka > > JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*.
> JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover > it then.
Indeed JS has no UI of its own. What I meant of course is that Crockford covers NONE of the functions that interact with and change the visible components of the DOM (that which changes the UI for the user in response to interaction, or as time passes)
> > Of course, those ignorant of > > JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's > > (and Crockford's) YUI,
> There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't > see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.
> > but > > you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real > > specifics of the > > language and it will be a crutch.
Leaving out coverage of good uses of functions that manipulate CSS and DOM is a huge incompleteness to any presentation of JavaScript. It is not like there are not better and worse ways to do things here. For example, one big issue is CSS vs DOM manipulation, which both can accomplish the same thing. How to do thing correctly with good combinations of DOM features and CSS and then using the related functions is a HUGE area where we need to develop good practice.
I am being to doubt tha Crockford ever deals with anything people see in a browser, this extreme larger oversight is so tremedous.
> The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information > about JavaScript.
> I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read > even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own > practices.
> What is your point anyway?
My point is: Even as a book that is trying to present just some best practices and principles for doing things, this book does less than half a job. The book, claiming to cover the 'good parts' of JavaScript is really so misleading in making that claim as to be fraudulent. Crockford claims he does twice a job than what he actually does (and probably much less). The DOM manipulation vs CSS issue and best practices and principles to use here would fill 300 pages (being just the same sort of practices and principles subset book that Crockford's is).
Crockford's description of what he is offering is so inaccurate as to be delusional.
By the way, I am no JS library lover. I do all raw and from scratch in most of my programs. SO I DO KNOW OF WHAT I SPEAK.
On Aug 18, 7:21 pm, RobG <rg...@iinet.net.au> wrote: *language*.
> I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been > called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the > same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript". :-)
This is true. Crockford doesn't cover CSS and DOM and he also doesn't cover FileSystemObject and other command line third-party library objects. It is about pure ECMAscript and 150 pages is what he needs to cover it pretty well.
The book is very helpful to me, clarifies many things I was fuzzy on. It's the only book on any language I've bought this year. It's comparable to the "The C Language" by Kernigan and Richie. You couldn't actually write programs from that book either but when your program 'sploded it was that book that I turned to to find out why.
Frankly, I just thing you Crockford fanatics are lazy and just want to read 100 pages and think you know something. You could hardly make a single decent interactive JS program appear in a browser with what is in that book (and perhaps couldn't). Yet, somehow Crockford claims to cover the "best parts"! What a joke.
How are you going to effectively and efficiently change the user interface? Crcokford does not help even the slightest bit here, though this is a major issue (just perhaps not one pat enough for crabby Crockford's taste). About 10 good books Crockford shows no respect for are the only sources to learn anything about this, including any principles of good coding in this area. He disrespects the hard work of a decade of hard-working book writers -- all people I read and learned greatly from (though admittedly many of the books were in some ways "bad" and often read like encyclopedias). But, Crockford's book is bad because it is so incomplete and its examples covering only a small subset of the practical functions in Javascript. Really good books show really good programs (at least some) and they actually appear in your browser. Crockford has written just another very bad book, from this perspective. CSS/DOM: Do the Crockfordians forget is exists or that there are many good/bad practices in dealing in this area??
Crockford's book (to be useful) really assumes you know at least many many times as much about JavaScript than is in the book. Crockford's abstract examples do not deal with much of the JavaScript a JavaScript programmer uses. Places where we need to have principles and best practices clarified. CSS/DOM
Crockford is good in his small limited area. I learned from him and I value that learning. But the conceit of Crockford and disparaging other books, when ' he writes just one that is outrageous limited and incomplete makes me think he is an old foggie.
> On Aug 18, 7:21 pm, RobG <rg...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > *language*.
> > I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been > > called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the > > same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript". :-)
> This is true. Crockford doesn't cover CSS and DOM and he also doesn't > cover FileSystemObject and other command line third-party library > objects. It is about pure ECMAscript and 150 pages is what he needs > to cover it pretty well.
> The book is very helpful to me, clarifies many things I was fuzzy on. > It's the only book on any language I've bought this year. It's > comparable to the "The C Language" by Kernigan and Richie. You > couldn't actually write programs from that book either but when your > program 'sploded it was that book that I turned to to find out why.
> Bob
I agree with you completely EXCEPT that the title and things Crockford says in the book belie the extremely limited scope and extremely incomplete and partial coverage of the great JavaScript language I have been programming in and producing full browser programs with for 10 years.
No scholar should show the disrespect for other needed resources Crockford shows, Perhaps, Newton late in life could say there was no physics before him, after he published several huge works. But, such a situation is rare and Crockford with his 100-page book (many pages filled with weird simple useless 'diagrams') is NOT a body of work that puts him in this position. Yet, he is so "good" (in his own mind) he misleads people with at least implicit claims that the "good parts" are all there. I wonder if Crockford can even manipulate the DOM or CSS. Really.
lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > Frankly, I just thing you Crockford fanatics are lazy and just want > to > read 100 pages and think you know something. You could hardly make a > single decent > interactive JS program appear in a browser with what is in that book > (and perhaps > couldn't). Yet, somehow Crockford claims to cover the "best parts"! > What a joke.
If you seriously think the "best parts" of javascript is the ability of change a div's style you are really not the target audience of the book.
Next time, leave the programming books to the programmers.
> lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > > Frankly, I just thing you Crockford fanatics are lazy and just want > > to > > read 100 pages and think you know something. You could hardly make a > > single decent > > interactive JS program appear in a browser with what is in that book > > (and perhaps > > couldn't). Yet, somehow Crockford claims to cover the "best parts"! > > What a joke.
> If you seriously think the "best parts" of javascript is the ability > of change a div's style you are really not the target audience of the > book.
> Next time, leave the programming books to the programmers.
Yes, they are. Programs a person can actually run in a browser and show something and do something and that people can use. Where are Crockford's?? I believe he has none. (By the way, I use a JS library only in one of the above programs).
> lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes: > > Frankly, I just thing you Crockford fanatics are lazy and just want > > to > > read 100 pages and think you know something. You could hardly make a > > single decent > > interactive JS program appear in a browser with what is in that book > > (and perhaps > > couldn't). Yet, somehow Crockford claims to cover the "best parts"! > > What a joke.
> If you seriously think the "best parts" of javascript is the ability > of change a div's style you are really not the target audience of the > book.
> Next time, leave the programming books to the programmers.
If you seriously think there are not great issues relating to DOM and CSS setup and how to use them, all your programs must be used only by nerds doing calculations and nothing that is used by, for example, teachers and students and real people building and doing real things.
There are great questions about the best way to setup DOM and CSS and interact with the user (and actually making things happen -- it's called user interaction) and do it well. Apparently Crockford has missed all these issues, devaluing and insulting all the great books showing good ideas and good practices in this area. If you think that the way to actually create the changes and interactivity on a web site are simple clear and obvious or that there is only "one way", then you have not built programs for people.
