Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).

142 views
Skip to first unread message

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 4:47:56 PM8/18/08
to
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.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 5:01:59 PM8/18/08
to
On Aug 18, 3:47 pm, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 5:26:09 PM8/18/08
to
lorlarz <lor...@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/

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 5:41:21 PM8/18/08
to
On Aug 18, 4:26 pm, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:
> Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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.

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 5:46:25 PM8/18/08
to
lorlarz <lor...@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:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 5:54:49 PM8/18/08
to
On Aug 18, 4:46 pm, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

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.

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 6:00:23 PM8/18/08
to
lorlarz <lor...@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.

RobG

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 7:21:49 PM8/18/08
to
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

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 8:19:33 PM8/18/08
to
> 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.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 8:28:05 PM8/18/08
to
Typo correction: Of course what I meant below (in my quoted remarks)
was
" ... ECMAScript *or* JavaScript programmer ..."

Let me add, the first line of Crockford's Preface to JavaScript, The
Good Parts,
reads:

"This is a book about the JavaScript programming language ... "

and then
he soon says:

"It is not exhaustive about the language and its quirks. It does not
contain
everything you/ll ever need to know"

(and this is one tremendous gross and extreme understatement !!!!!!!)

Flanagan's book is called: JavaScript, The Definitive Guide.

> language and it will be a crutch.- Hide quoted text -

Aaron Gray

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 8:37:30 PM8/18/08
to
"lorlarz" <lor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:468580d0-796d-46bb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...

> 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


lorlarz

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 8:56:17 PM8/18/08
to
On Aug 18, 7:37 pm, "Aaron Gray" <ang.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "lorlarz" <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote in message

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)

Peter Michaux

unread,
Aug 18, 2008, 9:21:31 PM8/18/08
to
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.


What is your point anyway?

Peter

dhtml

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 1:54:05 AM8/19/08
to
lorlarz wrote:
> On Aug 18, 7:37 pm, "Aaron Gray" <ang.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "lorlarz" <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:468580d0-796d-46bb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>

[snip]


>
> 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.


Garrett

Gregor Kofler

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:06:36 AM8/19/08
to
lorlarz meinte:

> 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.

Gregor


--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

Gregor Kofler

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:11:25 AM8/19/08
to
Aaron Gray meinte:

> 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.

Gregor Kofler

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:13:20 AM8/19/08
to
lorlarz meinte:

[crap snipped]

Just stop reading books, which scope you can't or won't understand.
Resort to Resig's alternatives.

Gregor Kofler

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:17:02 AM8/19/08
to
lorlarz meinte:

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

Could you post correctly. Puhleze.

> 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

See.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 9:30:25 AM8/19/08
to
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.


beegee

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 9:35:38 AM8/19/08
to
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

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 9:50:47 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 2:13 am, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.at> wrote:
> lorlarz meinte:
>
> [crap snipped]
>
> Just stop reading books, which scope you can't or won't understand.
> Resort to Resig's alternatives.
>
> Gregor
>
> --http://photo.gregorkofler.at::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografiehttp://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiesehttp://www.image2d.com      ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

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.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 9:59:56 AM8/19/08
to

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.

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:00:21 AM8/19/08
to
lorlarz <lor...@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

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:10:35 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 9:00 am, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

Are these programs?:

http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/translateT.html

http://mynichecomputing.com/GuideInfoandPlanner/UniversalDD.htm

http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/HierMenuBuilder3.htm
builds http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/ (menu itself is by
Danny Goodman,
builder is my addon)

http://mynichecomputing.com/digitallearning/yourOwn.htm

http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:19:05 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 9:00 am, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

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.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:23:32 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 9:00 am, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

Not only hsve I been making JavaScript Programs for ten years. I am
a
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform (2000) and am a
Microsoft
Certified ASP.NET programmer.

Thus, I think I am a programmer. I also make programs people can see
and use.
Where are Douglas Crockford's?

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:28:49 AM8/19/08
to
lorlarz <lor...@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

There are all kinds of questions that people seem to have about these
things, but the only interesting question is: "how do I make this
useful for the end-user" which isn't a programming question.

if your question is: how the hell do i make this work cross-browser
(boring, and still has more to do with searching through the
non-standard APIs for the top X browsers than actual programming - and
in the case of MS most of the non-standard APIs aren't even
exclusively JS APIs).

Also, any book answering question 2 will be out of date the moment
it's in the shops.

> 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.

As I said, those aren't programming problems.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:31:21 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 18, 4:46 pm, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

alerts are not in the language. That is something in the browser.
Because
Crockford does not address anything that effect the UI, you would be
left
to alerts (something NOT in JS) because Crockford, the pompous ass,
does not
cover manipulating
UI. MY very point

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:38:02 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 9:28 am, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

There are as many choices and questions of good programming practices
and how to be efficient and have reusable or modular code in the CSS/
DOM area
as there are in the functional area covered by Crockford. Probably
many more
big issues. Only the other
books I listed with great examples to learn from can teach you this.

Actually, I believe Crockford dealt by far with the easiest questions.
The man
may not have the ability to deal in the challenging area of using JS
to effectively
build and change the UI. It's probably harder and perhaps too hard
for
Crockford (but he gives you all you need to process and turn out
numbers, perhaps).
Some people cannot take on challenging areas, because so much less is
so much less
pat.

Evertjan.

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:43:45 AM8/19/08
to
Joost Diepenmaat wrote on 19 aug 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

> There are all kinds of questions that people seem to have about these
> things, but the only interesting question is: "how do I make this
> useful for the end-user" which isn't a programming question.

No, there is more, Joost:

How do I programming for my hobby or work so much fun,
that sitting in front of the telly, or going farming is not more fun.

Programming can be done in style, with maximum compactness, with special
whit or etc., all transparent to the end-user, but necessary for your
enjoyment.

I find that to be far more interesting than the end-user.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:44:41 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 9:28 am, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

Let's see how you do with your attitude. What have you actually
produced
for the Internet? Is there anything with a visible interface that
people
can interact with ? That's the test. Yep. Give a list of links like
I have.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with issues because you haven't made
anything (?)
and simply do not appreciate the whole area and programming practices
here.

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:48:25 AM8/19/08
to
lorlarz <lor...@gmail.com> writes:


> Let's see how you do with your attitude. What have you actually
> produced
> for the Internet? Is there anything with a visible interface that
> people
> can interact with ? That's the test. Yep. Give a list of links like
> I have.

https://stadsarchief.amsterdam.nl/archieven/archiefbank/inventaris/920.nl.html?p=&t=153#

HTH,
Joost.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 10:52:34 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 2:06 am, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.at> wrote:
> lorlarz meinte:
>
[snip]

>
> > 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.
>
[snip]
>
> Gregor
>
> --http://photo.gregorkofler.at::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografiehttp://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiesehttp://www.image2d.com      ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

Please put the program that manipulates the DOM using only what is
in Crockford's book up on the Internet. Give us the address. Let's
see that program which changes the DOM in interaction with the user.
I do not think you are telling the truth, since there is nothing in
Crockford's book about it, whether directly manipulating the DOM or
via
CSS.

Peter Michaux

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 11:34:48 AM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 6:30 am, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

He is not writing about UI *on* *purpose*!


> [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)

He doesn't discuss those things because they are *out* *of* *scope*
for his book.


> > > 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.

No it isn't. If a book is to discuss JavaScript in specific it should
*not* discuss CSS and/or the DOM.


> 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.

Sounds like you should be writing "Browser Scripting: The Good Parts"
because no one has set out to do that yet.


> I am being to doubt tha Crockford ever deals with anything people see
> in a
> browser, this extreme larger oversight is so tremedous.

It was not an oversight.


> > 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 sets out to discuss the parts of the JavaScript language
which Crockford thinks are the good parts. That is a good idea for a
book.


> The book, claiming to cover the 'good parts' of JavaScript is really
> so misleading

I don't think so.

> in making that claim as to be fraudulent.

I don't think so.

You seem to either desperately want the book to be something it wasn't
intended to be or your money back. I don't understand your motivation.


> 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.

I didn't find it to be inaccurate. I'm somewhat dumbfounded that you
do find it inaccurate and are so angry and disappointed about that
misunderstanding.


> 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.

Good for you.

Peter

optimistx

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 12:56:26 PM8/19/08
to
lorlarz wrote:
...

> Please put the program that manipulates the DOM using only what is
> in Crockford's book up on the Internet. Give us the address. Let's
> see that program which changes the DOM in interaction with the user.
> I do not think you are telling the truth, since there is nothing in
> Crockford's book about it, whether directly manipulating the DOM or
> via
> CSS.

Assume Crockford had considered for- statement and the object literal the
'good parts of javascript' in his opinion.

Then he wrote a book of those. Why would we complain? 'Good book, but wrong
topic!' ?


Dr J R Stockton

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 9:30:55 AM8/19/08
to
In comp.lang.javascript message <468580d0-796d-46bb-b179-0cae2c710c8c@26
g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:47:56, lorlarz
<lor...@gmail.com> posted:

>I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's clearly not a necessary condition; it may not even be sufficient.
>_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.

Because JavaScript is independent of CSS and the browser DOM.

Those who want to use it only in other situations will not want to buy
irrelevant material. It can for example be used, in Windows, with WSH
CScript and WScript; for that, it is often better than the more
commonly-used VBscript which appeals only to the simple-minder herd that
find it comfortable to rely on Microsoft as much as they can.

Of course, a well-written similar-sized book on CSS, and one on each of
the commoner DOMs, would also be worth having available, for those in
need of such.

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

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 2:39:11 PM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 8:30 am, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <468580d0-796d-46bb-b179-0cae2c710c8c@26
> g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:47:56, lorlarz
> <lorl...@gmail.com> posted:

>
> >I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
>
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That's clearly not a necessary condition; it may not even be sufficient.
>
> >_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.
>
> Because JavaScript is independent of CSS and the browser DOM.
>

Javascript is NOT independent of the DOM and CSS _if_ you look at many
of the
functiions
in the language ARE and what they are FOR. There are many functions
for walking
the DOM, creating DOM elements, adding those elements dynamically to
the page
and another whole large set of functions also _in the language known
as
JavaScript_ for manipulating CSS and thus dynamically affecting the
page that way.

In the sense YOU speak, JavaScript is INDEPENDENT OF EVERYTHING. See
how
little sense that makes? Some day when YOU, like me, start making
actual
full-blown Javascript applications and stop being script kiddies, you
will
appreciate this point. People: start making Javascript Applications!!

And, finally (with respect to your material quoted below):
Javascript's MAIN use is for use in the web browsers (check your
history,
if you are unclear about this). The language was in NO WAY designed
to be
independent of the DOM, etc. ECMA standards NOTWITHSTANDING.

> Those who want to use it only in other situations will not want to buy
> irrelevant material.  It can for example be used, in Windows, with WSH
> CScript and WScript; for that, it is often better than the more
> commonly-used VBscript which appeals only to the simple-minder herd that
> find it comfortable to rely on Microsoft as much as they can.
>
> Of course, a well-written similar-sized book on CSS, and one on each of
> the commoner DOMs, would also be worth having available, for those in
> need of such.
>
> --

>  (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?...@merlyn.demon.co.uk  BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 2:50:07 PM8/19/08
to
lorlarz <lor...@gmail.com> writes:

[ reformatted for better reading ]

> Javascript is NOT independent of the DOM and CSS _if_ you look at
> many of the functiions in the language ARE and what they are FOR.
> There are many functions for walking the DOM, creating DOM elements,
> adding those elements dynamically to the page and another whole
> large set of functions also _in the language known as JavaScript_
> for manipulating CSS and thus dynamically affecting the page that
> way.

Talk crap all you want. Those functions are NOT in the language. They
may or may not be provided by the host environment, if the host
environment is a browser, and feels like it.

> In the sense YOU speak, JavaScript is INDEPENDENT OF EVERYTHING. See
> how
> little sense that makes?

It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.

> Some day when YOU, like me, start making actual full-blown
> Javascript applications and stop being script kiddies, you will
> appreciate this point. People: start making Javascript
> Applications!!

Like the "click a letter and a number" "application" you made? Please.

> And, finally (with respect to your material quoted below):
> Javascript's MAIN use is for use in the web browsers (check your
> history, if you are unclear about this). The language was in NO WAY
> designed to be independent of the DOM, etc. ECMA standards
> NOTWITHSTANDING.

Designed or not, right now it definitely IS not bound to web browsers
specifically, and especially not to the DOM - or do you really tink
actionscript is marginal technology? Also check Netscape's own
server-side javascript initiative, which IIRC was created very soon
after netscape's browser-side javascript.

John G Harris

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 2:53:00 PM8/19/08
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 at 07:23:32, in comp.lang.javascript, lorlarz wrote:

<snip>


>Thus, I think I am a programmer. I also make programs people can see
>and use.
>Where are Douglas Crockford's?

The algorithms in Knuth's famous books are written in a programming
language that won't run in any real computer. Are you complaining about
that as well ?

John
--
John Harris

Gregor Kofler

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:05:34 PM8/19/08
to
lorlarz meinte:

That's a hoot. You are showing off this ...er... stuff? Seem to be
contenders for a crap compo.

To get me right: There's nothing wrong with your examples, as long as
you wouldn't use them to "demonstrate" your proficiency in JS and goof
on others. Normally I'd say "can be improved" - in this case I'd rather
resort to "sod off!".

> something and do something and that people can use. Where are
> Crockford's??

Crockford wrote JSLint. Crockford wrote JSON. Crockford wrote JSMin.
Crockford wrote...

Let's see: My XHR communication utilizes JSON (as do zillions of other
web pages). I check my JS with JSLint to track down nasty, hard to find
bugs, and I use JSON to compress my files. All useful stuff. No need for
lolarz' scripts yet.

> I believe he has none. (By the way, I use a JS library only in one of
> the
> above programs).

jQuery. A wise decision. In this case you should rave about Resig's
books and leave Crockford to the JS aficionados.

Gregor

--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese

Tim Streater

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:15:52 PM8/19/08
to
In article <87zln8y...@zeekat.nl>,
Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

Without wishing to get embroiled in the above argument, can you indicate
why I might want to use JavaScript *not* in a browser (I mean for other
than say teaching purposes)? Why might I use it for general purpose
scripting instead of, say, PHP?

Gregor Kofler

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:10:29 PM8/19/08
to
lorlarz meinte:

> Please put the program that manipulates the DOM using only what is
> in Crockford's book up on the Internet. Give us the address. Let's
> see that program which changes the DOM in interaction with the user.

I suppose it's your lacking in German, otherwise you'd have already
found the link. But then... you are incapable to quote properly. Perhaps
this is just over your head.


> I do not think you are telling the truth, since there is nothing in
> Crockford's book about it, whether directly manipulating the DOM or
> via
> CSS.

I didn't need Crockford for *that*.


Gregor


--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese

Stanimir Stamenkov

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:28:10 PM8/19/08
to
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:15:52 +0100, /Tim Streater/:

> Without wishing to get embroiled in the above argument, can you indicate
> why I might want to use JavaScript *not* in a browser (I mean for other
> than say teaching purposes)? Why might I use it for general purpose
> scripting instead of, say, PHP?

Because you don't have to learn yet another language, for example.
You may reuse code for optional client-side form validation on the
server-side (depending on the framework), as another example.

--
Stanimir

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:29:02 PM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 9:48 am, Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

> lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Let's see how you do with your attitude.   What have you actually
> > produced
> > for the Internet?  Is there anything with a visible interface that
> > people
> > can interact with ?  That's the test.  Yep.  Give a list of links like
> > I have.
>
> https://stadsarchief.amsterdam.nl/archieven/archiefbank/inventaris/92...

>
> HTH,
> Joost.
>
> --
> Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/

Saw your 'program'. Not a program. Running, doing stuff continuously
in Javascript
start to result with several significant steps along the way -- that
is a
program. Trouble is, yours is just script kiddie stuff. You don't
appreciate my point about key parts of javascript because you do not
do
javascript programs. I do JavaScript programs.

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:30:45 PM8/19/08
to
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> writes:

> Without wishing to get embroiled in the above argument, can you indicate
> why I might want to use JavaScript *not* in a browser (I mean for other
> than say teaching purposes)? Why might I use it for general purpose
> scripting instead of, say, PHP?

Heh, I wouldn't use PHP for general scripting :-)

Javascript is quite a good as an embedded language, which is what it
is in a browser too. There are a few webservers that support
javascript as a scripting language, which I guess makes sense if
you're already using a lot of javascript at the client - less hassle
converting data back and forth.

Then there's Flash/actionscript - which usually runs in a browser but
has a completely different host object model, and adobe is working
hard at pushing flash/flex/air to the desktop.

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:33:23 PM8/19/08
to
lorlarz <lor...@gmail.com> writes:

> Saw your 'program'. Not a program.

Whatever.

> Running, doing stuff continuously
> in Javascript
> start to result with several significant steps along the way -- that
> is a
> program.

What the fuck are you talking about?

> Trouble is, yours is just script kiddie stuff. You don't
> appreciate my point about key parts of javascript because you do not
> do
> javascript programs. I do JavaScript programs.

What points would that be? All you've demonstrated up to now is your
complete and utter ignorance. Oh, and your arrogance - strange how
those things seems to go together.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:35:08 PM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 2:10 pm, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.at> wrote:
> lorlarz meinte:
>
> > Please put the program that manipulates the DOM using only what is
> > in Crockford's book up on the Internet.  Give us the address. Let's
> > see that program which changes the DOM in interaction with the user.
>
> I suppose it's your lacking in German, otherwise you'd have already
> found the link. But then... you are incapable to quote properly. Perhaps
> this is just over your head.
>
> > I do not think you are telling the truth, since there is nothing in
> > Crockford's book about it, whether directly manipulating the DOM or
> > via
> > CSS.
>
> I didn't need Crockford for *that*.
>
> Gregor
>
> --http://photo.gregorkofler.at::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografiehttp://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiesehttp://www.image2d.com      ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

Hey, I appreciate Crockford, though could do perfectly ok without him
(though better with him). But, I disagree, the issues of how to
best
programatically interact to change the UI display via the DOM and/or
CSS using the related JavaScript functions IS A BIG TOPIC
AREA ABOUT GOOD PROGRAMMING, looking a a huge groups of JS functions
Crockford is apparently too insecure to address.

If you script kiddies ever tried actually making a PROGRAM with
Javascript
that people could use, you would see this lightning fast.

Tim Streater

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:40:28 PM8/19/08
to
In article <87od3ox...@zeekat.nl>,
Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:

OK, thanks. I might disagree with you about PHP but that is getting
quite OT so I won't :-)

Michael Wojcik

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 3:34:06 PM8/19/08
to
Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>
> Talk crap all you want. Those functions are NOT in the language.

Indeed (and FWIW I agree with you regarding Crockford's book). However:

> It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.

This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.

A better example might be that C does not include any support for
GUIs, the great number of GUI programs written in C notwithstanding.

That said, I don't think you're going to gain any traction in this
argument. Someone who fetishizes application programming is likely to
remain convinced that UI facilities in the host environment are the
center of the universe, sweet reason notwithstanding.

(Most of *my* ECMAScript work has very little to do with UIs; it's
doing work I actually find interesting, like text processing. And
there the actual language is very relevant, and the DOM and CSS not at
all. But since that's not the "MAIN use" of "Javascript", I suppose it
doesn't count - at least not in the magical fairy world of
"application" programming.)

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 5:37:46 PM8/19/08
to
Michael Wojcik <mwo...@newsguy.com> writes:

> Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>>
>> Talk crap all you want. Those functions are NOT in the language.
>
> Indeed (and FWIW I agree with you regarding Crockford's book). However:
>
>> It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.
>
> This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
> includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.

It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
(it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.

Just the fact that you can replace the standard library probably
counts for something, anyway.

> A better example might be that C does not include any support for
> GUIs, the great number of GUI programs written in C notwithstanding.

Probably, yes.

> That said, I don't think you're going to gain any traction in this
> argument. Someone who fetishizes application programming is likely to
> remain convinced that UI facilities in the host environment are the
> center of the universe, sweet reason notwithstanding.

I think you're right, and I already put this guy in my kill file to
prevent further irritation.

> (Most of *my* ECMAScript work has very little to do with UIs; it's
> doing work I actually find interesting, like text processing. And
> there the actual language is very relevant, and the DOM and CSS not at
> all. But since that's not the "MAIN use" of "Javascript", I suppose it
> doesn't count - at least not in the magical fairy world of
> "application" programming.)

I still have a project on the back burner to write an ecmascript
interpreter in Common Lisp. Probably not relevant either. :-)

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 5:48:45 PM8/19/08
to
Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> writes:

> Michael Wojcik <mwo...@newsguy.com> writes:

>> This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
>> includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.
>
> It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
> (it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
> find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.

It might be optional, if you don't want to be compliant with the ANSI C
standard :)

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 6:04:24 PM8/19/08
to
Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
> Michael Wojcik <mwo...@newsguy.com> writes:
>> Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>>> Talk crap all you want. Those functions are NOT in the language.
>> Indeed (and FWIW I agree with you regarding Crockford's book). However:
>>
>>> It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.
>> This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
>> includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.
>
> It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
> (it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
> find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.
> Just the fact that you can replace the standard library probably
> counts for something, anyway.

Yet I find it hard to imagine to write an efficient OS without libc's stdio.h.


PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

Joost Diepenmaat

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 6:14:17 PM8/19/08
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:

> Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>> It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
>> (it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
>> find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.
>> Just the fact that you can replace the standard library probably
>> counts for something, anyway.
>
> Yet I find it hard to imagine to write an efficient OS without libc's stdio.h.

The OS might *provide* a stdio.h, but an OS would have to *implement*
it itself (or at least, provide the kernel calls with which stdio.h
would be implemented).

See for instance: fopen(3) vs open(2)

But we're getting very off topic now.

Dr J R Stockton

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 1:43:48 PM8/19/08
to
In comp.lang.javascript message <55ec33dc-ef70-4ef1-a102-5ac18a04d4b4@s5
0g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:23:32, lorlarz
<lor...@gmail.com> posted:
>Not only hsve I been making JavaScript Programs for ten years. I am
>a
>Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform (2000) and am a
>Microsoft
>Certified ASP.NET programmer.
>

Please give URLs for some of your work, so that we may assess its
quality and (maybe) learn from it.

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ. See below.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk IE7 FF2 Op9 Sf3
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

lorlarz

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 7:57:27 PM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 12:43 pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <55ec33dc-ef70-4ef1-a102-5ac18a04d4b4@s5
> 0g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:23:32, lorlarz
> <lorl...@gmail.com> posted:

>
> >Not only hsve I been making JavaScript Programs for ten years.  I am
> >a
> >Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform (2000) and am a
> >Microsoft
> >Certified ASP.NET programmer.
>
> Please give URLs for some of your work, so that we may assess its
> quality and (maybe) learn from it.
>
> It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ.  See below.
>
> --
>  (c) John Stockton, nr London UK.   ?...@merlyn.demon.co.uk     IE7 FF2 Op9 Sf3

>  news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
>  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
>  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

If you look earlier in this very thread there are links to my actual
javascript applications -- something apparently almost no one but me
writes.
While mine may not be sophisicated, know that I work completely alone
& at least I
do applications in JS. When are the rest of you going to get with
that program,
and start _and_ thus quit being script kiddies and giving javascript,
the world's
best programming language, a bad name??

kangax

unread,
Aug 19, 2008, 8:28:11 PM8/19/08
to
On Aug 19, 9:50 am, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 19, 2:13 am, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.at> wrote:
>
> > lorlarz meinte:
>
> > [crap snipped]
>
> > Just stop reading books, which scope you can't or won't understand.
> > Resort to Resig's alternatives.

>
> > Gregor
>
> > --http://photo.gregorkofler.at:::Landschafts- und Reisefotografiehttp://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiesehttp://www.image2d.com     ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
>
> 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.

Another VK. *sigh*

--
kangax

Laurent vilday

unread,
Aug 20, 2008, 3:53:08 AM8/20/08
to
lorlarz :
> Dr J R Stockton :
>> lorlarz :

>>
>>> Not only hsve I been making JavaScript Programs for ten years.

ROFLMAO. That's a lie, anyway, who cares ?

>> Please give URLs for some of your work, so that we may assess its
>> quality and (maybe) learn from it.
>

> If you look earlier in this very thread there are links to my actual
> javascript applications -- something apparently almost no one but me
> writes.

ROFLMAO bis. Of course nobody else would have wrote such crap. Are you
really serious when you show the group thoses crapy .. hurm... stuff ?

Let's take your first example and get a real good laugh, would you ? You
looking for it since a long time after all. So, well, let me get a bit
nasty with your ugly code, if it can help you shut up.

<http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/translateT.html>
For a start, you DTD is not valid, and even if it was valid, your
document is far away from being a valid HTML 4.01 strict. Real
developper know he *HAS* to correctly validate his document before
trying to add some JavaScript behaviour on it. Especially when they do
JavaScript since 10 years as you claiming. After 10 years of JavaScript
you should know that, and more important you should never have shown
experts (yeah, even if I dislike some here, experts are here) your ugly
stuff.

But let's see the JS, HTML is OT here. And since you doing JS for so
many times, you don't need to be pinpointed to each HTML errors, you
will fix this simple HTML quicky, I have no doubt. Mwarff.

<http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/matchingb.js>

OMG. Nope, finally I will let this awfull crap rot alone in hell. It is
in top position for being one of the worst JavaScript I have seen so
far. Can't be quickly fixed, it needs a rewrite from scratch, but from
someone knowing what he is doing. You don't know.

Anyway, looks like you should use some JSLint goodness. Probably it is
time for you to start learning the "JavaScript Good Parts".

> While mine may not be sophisicated, know that I work completely alone
> & at least I
> do applications in JS. When are the rest of you going to get with
> that program,

Don't need to compare anything to your "scripts", you will loose for
sure. My cock is MUCH bigger than yours of course. Blah Blah Blah.

> and start _and_ thus quit being script kiddies and giving javascript,
> the world's
> best programming language, a bad name??

Nice Troll, and you get fed by everyone here. You are trully a good
troll. Congrats.

--
laurent

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Aug 20, 2008, 6:26:21 AM8/20/08