> 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.

> --
> Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -