FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript? (2009-05-02)
FAQ server
FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although many books have been reviewed, most are quite bad and
cannot be recommended.
The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js regulars
and has been reviewed and discussed (see the archives).
_"JavaScript: The Definitive Guide,"_ 5th Edition, By David Flanagan.
ISBN: 0-596-10199-6
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596101992/toc.html
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/jscript5/errata/
_"JavaScript Pocket Reference,"_, By David Flanagan.
ISBN-10: 1565925211, ISBN-13: 978-1565925212
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596004118/toc.html
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596004118/errata/
The complete comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at
http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
--
The sendings of these daily posts are proficiently hosted
by http://www.pair.com.
Jorge
FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although many books have been reviewed, most are quite bad and
cannot be recommended.
The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js regulars
and has been reviewed and discussed (see the archives).
"JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
ISBN 10: 0-596-51774-2 | ISBN 13: 9780596517748
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/
--
Jorge.
Garrett Smith
Do you want that book listed and the others removed?
Inclusion of "The Good Parts" could be more agreed upon if the book
itself were more technically correct.
The Flanagan book does contain a fair number of mistakes and has not
been updated.
One common misconception is the "Core Javascript" and "Client Side
Javascript" which is an organizational basis of "The Definitive Guide".
It might be better to remove the books altogether, until something
better comes along.
Garrett
David Mark
> Jorge wrote:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Although many books have been reviewed, most are quite bad and
> > cannot be recommended.
>
> > The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js regulars
> > and has been reviewed and discussed (see the archives).
>
> > "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
> > ISBN 10: 0-596-51774-2 | ISBN 13: 9780596517748
>
> >http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/
>
> > --
> > Jorge.
>
> Do you want that book listed and the others removed?
In this regard, what does it matter what "Jorge" wants?
>
> Inclusion of "The Good Parts" could be more agreed upon if the book
> itself were more technically correct.
It shouldn't be on there.
>
> The Flanagan book does contain a fair number of mistakes and has not
> been updated.
It should be removed.
>
> One common misconception is the "Core Javascript" and "Client Side
> Javascript" which is an organizational basis of "The Definitive Guide".
>
> It might be better to remove the books altogether, until something
> better comes along.
Should just be a note to save your money.
Dr J R Stockton
dk>, Fri, 1 May 2009 23:00:02, FAQ server <javas...@dotinternet.be>
posted:
>The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js regulars
YGCIB. Grammar fault.
>The sendings of these daily posts are proficiently hosted
Using "sending" ... "is" would be more natural.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
kangax
[...]
> The Flanagan book does contain a fair number of mistakes and has not
> been updated.
>
> One common misconception is the "Core Javascript" and "Client Side
> Javascript" which is an organizational basis of "The Definitive Guide".
>
> It might be better to remove the books altogether, until something
> better comes along.
I wonder how the 2nd ed. of "Professional Javascript" by Zakas is [1]
and whether it can be recommended (perhaps, instead of Flanagan). I read
some parts of it while it was in beta but I was much more confused about
Javascript at that time than I am now.
I can most likely get an ebook version of it from an author for a review.
--
kangax
SteveYoungTbird
> On May 2, 3:48 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jorge wrote:
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Although many books have been reviewed, most are quite bad and
>>> cannot be recommended.
>>> The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js regulars
>>> and has been reviewed and discussed (see the archives).
>>> "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
>>> ISBN 10: 0-596-51774-2 | ISBN 13: 9780596517748
>>> http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/
>>> --
>>> Jorge.
>> Do you want that book listed and the others removed?
>
> In this regard, what does it matter what "Jorge" wants?
In this regard, what does it matter what David Mark wants?
>
>> Inclusion of "The Good Parts" could be more agreed upon if the book
>> itself were more technically correct.
>
> It shouldn't be on there.
Therefore from three recommended books only two remain.
>
>> The Flanagan book does contain a fair number of mistakes and has not
>> been updated.
>
> It should be removed.
Now we're down to one.
>
>> One common misconception is the "Core Javascript" and "Client Side
>> Javascript" which is an organizational basis of "The Definitive Guide".
>>
>> It might be better to remove the books altogether, until something
>> better comes along.
That would suit David because, as he constantly reminds us, he is
bringing out a book soon. However he says that it won't be a reference
book so we don't quite know what to expect.
>
> Should just be a note to save your money.
How can you expect that anyone can learn JavaScript it you simply state
that all texts are rubbish and offer no alternatives? Together David
Mark and Thomas Lahn have made c.l.j. a really scary place for beginners
to ask questions. Between them have turned c.l.j. into their own private
stand for showing off how much they know about ECMAScript and for
abusing anyone who is not as "clever" as they are. The people that
really offered useful advice for novices (Dr. Stockton, Douglas
Crockford, Evertjan, VK .......) either answer a lot less or not at all,
presumably to avoid the pointless abuse they face from our two permanent
adolescents.
Sorry for the tirade but it makes me mad!
Regards, Steve.
John G Harris
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't post forged FAQ topics.
>Although many books have been reviewed, most are quite bad and
>cannot be recommended.
>
>The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js regulars
>and has been reviewed and discussed (see the archives).
The book hasn't been reviewed here, and most comments on it are
negative.
>"JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
>ISBN 10: 0-596-51774-2 | ISBN 13: 9780596517748
>
>http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/
--
John Harris
John G Harris
wrote:
<snip>
>How can you expect that anyone can learn JavaScript it you simply state
>that all texts are rubbish and offer no alternatives?
People need to be warned.
> Together David Mark and Thomas Lahn have made c.l.j. a really scary
>place for beginners to ask questions. Between them have turned c.l.j.
>into their own private stand for showing off how much they know about
>ECMAScript and for abusing anyone who is not as "clever" as they are.
>The people that really offered useful advice for novices (Dr. Stockton,
>Douglas Crockford, Evertjan, VK .......) either answer a lot less or
>not at all, presumably to avoid the pointless abuse they face from our
>two permanent adolescents.
>Sorry for the tirade but it makes me mad!
John Stockton has been abusing people for far longer than the other two
and with less reason. VK is often incoherent but when he isn't he's
usually wrong.
I'm accusing you of bad judgement.
John
--
John Harris
David Mark
[snip]
Is it my fault that lots of people published bad books about
Javascript? Would it be useful for a newcomer to read bad books?
And aren't you the one who sent me an email recently (something about
clarifying some of my free advice?) Upset because I didn't respond?
Sorry, I don't normally respond to unsolicited emails, especially from
mouthy neophytes. Disregard if you do not represent
"SteveYoungGoogle." IIRC, that poster was a bad seed as well.
SteveYoungTbird
>
> And aren't you the one who sent me an email recently (something about
> clarifying some of my free advice?) Upset because I didn't respond?
> Sorry, I don't normally respond to unsolicited emails, especially from
> mouthy neophytes. Disregard if you do not represent
> "SteveYoungGoogle." IIRC, that poster was a bad seed as well.
I have never sent you an email!!!
SteveYoungTbird
And yes I use the name SteveYoungGoogle when I am not on my own machine.
But I have never sent you an email under this name either. I have never
sent you an email ever under any name, full stop. Please post some
evidence for your accusation.
I do not care for your advice and have often requested that you do not
reply to my questions on c.l.j. because I do not appreciate your lack of
any sort of decorum. See this example
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/d5eb5cbd0436f202/b66a7090d1e17f8c#b66a7090d1e17f8c
I would certainly not solicit your opinion about anything.
Steve.
David Mark
Your certainly have. See next reply.
David Mark
> SteveYoungTbird wrote:
> > David Mark wrote:
>
> >> And aren't you the one who sent me an email recently (something about
> >> clarifying some of my free advice?) Upset because I didn't respond?
> >> Sorry, I don't normally respond to unsolicited emails, especially from
> >> mouthy neophytes. Disregard if you do not represent
> >> "SteveYoungGoogle." IIRC, that poster was a bad seed as well.
>
> > I have never sent you an email!!!
>
> And yes I use the name SteveYoungGoogle when I am not on my own machine.
> But I have never sent you an email under this name either. I have never
> sent you an email ever under any name, full stop. Please post some
> evidence for your accusation.
>
Return-Path: dmark.cinsoft+caf_=dmark=cinso...@gmail.com
Received: from 65.182.109.79 (LHLO mta10.brinkster.com)
(65.182.109.79) by
mail6d.brinkster.com with LMTP; Fri, 1 May 2009 00:47:40 -0700 (MST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mta10.brinkster.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A1172B1F9;
Fri, 1 May 2009 03:47:38 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.443 tagged_above=-10 required=3.2
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from mta10.brinkster.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mta10.brinkster.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port
10024)
with ESMTP id qZ8610YIdi1j; Fri, 1 May 2009 03:47:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f213.google.com (mail-gx0-f213.google.com
[209.85.217.213])
by mta10.brinkster.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23C472B1F2
for <dm...@cinsoft.net>; Fri, 1 May 2009 03:47:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so4945220gxk.4
for <dm...@cinsoft.net>; Fri, 01 May 2009 00:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.36.198 with SMTP id u6mr2220149ibd.
36.1241164059147;
Fri, 01 May 2009 00:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-To: dm...@cinsoft.net
X-Forwarded-For: dmark....@gmail.com dm...@cinsoft.net
Delivered-To: dmark....@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.34.139 with SMTP id l11cs344987ibd;
Fri, 1 May 2009 00:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.210.56.7 with SMTP id e7mr264032eba.1.1241164057508;
Fri, 01 May 2009 00:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viefep18-int.chello.at (viefep18-int.chello.at
[62.179.121.38])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 5si3687139ewy.
28.2009.05.01.00.47.36;
Fri, 01 May 2009 00:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
stephe...@chello.at designates 62.179.121.38 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.179.121.38;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best
guess record for domain of stephe...@chello.at designates
62.179.121.38 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=stephe...@chello.at
Received: from edge02.upc.biz ([192.168.13.237]) by viefep18-
int.chello.at
(InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP
id <20090501074736.YMNO17051.viefep18-
int.ch...@edge02.upc.biz>
for <dmark....@gmail.com>; Fri, 1 May 2009 09:47:36
+0200
Received: from localhost ([62.178.152.68])
by edge02.upc.biz with edge
id m7nb1b05c1Uo2jA027ncJw; Fri, 01 May 2009 09:47:36 +0200
X-SourceIP: 62.178.152.68
Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [192.168.0.20])
by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4E11081A6
for <dmark....@gmail.com>; Fri, 1 May 2009 09:47:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <49FAA915...@chello.at>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 09:47:33 +0200
From: SteveYoungTbird <stephe...@chello.at>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
To: David Mark <dmark....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Selecting a radio button
References: <vt3Kl.35140$b9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
<49F8C7C4...@PointedEars.de> <%E8Kl.
35034$i9....@bignews8.bellsouth.net> <5765015d-0f9d-40d6-b20d-
d2b1d4...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <vohKl.35163$9a.
56...@bignews1.bellsouth.net> <02ed81aa-5280-4905-9031-
a9deb3...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <18570b34-304f-4a99-
a859-601...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
<5bb21$49f9f5f0$3eb29844$26...@news.chello.at>
<ccea2d77-1cd2-4618...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To:
<ccea2d77-1cd2-4618...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David Mark wrote:
> On Apr 30, 3:03 pm, SteveYoungTbird <stephen.yo...@chello.at> wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 10:43 am, SteveYoungGoogle <stephen.jo...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Then select the radio selection with:
>>>> document.form.radio[returnValue].checked="true"
>>> Do not use those shortcuts.
>>> document.forms.form.elements.radio[returnValue] ...
>> Why not?
>
> Because they are non-standard shortcuts that create compatibility
> issues.
Then to be consistent shouldn't it be -
window.document.forms.form.elements.radio[returnValue] .. ?
Would you be so kind as to point out a real compatibility issue or
are
you only referring to potential compatibility issues?
Regards, Steve.
[snip]
Dr J R Stockton
2 May 2009 12:48:15, Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>It might be better to remove the books altogether, until something
>better comes along.
Unreasonable. Do you expect everybody to learn JavaScript without a
printed reference? It is ludicrous to expect a book to be error-free.
I cannot believe "The Good Parts" to be appropriate as a primer; if it
is included, it needs to be described.
You should, however, take "book" liberally, for example not requiring an
ISBN proper. Therefore, read page 241 of the PDF of ECMA 262 Final
Draft 5 (it follows the page numbered 226) and/or the corresponding
parts of 3rd Edition. In this respect the ISO/IEC standard is sadly
inferior, cost-wise.
Include ECMA 262-3 in Section 3.1, with ISSN or whatever if known, and
price.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.
SteveYoungTbird
I apologize. My mistake. I meant to send the post to c.l.j. but I did
indeed misdirect it and sent it directly to you.
I suppose this is plus for Google Groups because I couldn't have made
this balls-up there :-)
Steve.
David Mark
> David Mark wrote:
> > On May 3, 12:53 pm, SteveYoungTbird <stephen.yo...@chello.at> wrote:
> >> David Mark wrote:
>
> >>> And aren't you the one who sent me an email recently (something about
> >>> clarifying some of my free advice?) Upset because I didn't respond?
> >>> Sorry, I don't normally respond to unsolicited emails, especially from
> >>> mouthy neophytes. Disregard if you do not represent
> >>> "SteveYoungGoogle." IIRC, that poster was a bad seed as well.
> >> I have never sent you an email!!!
>
> > Your certainly have. See next reply.
>
> I apologize. My mistake. I meant to send the post to c.l.j. but I did
> indeed misdirect it and sent it directly to you.
>
Of course. Now realize that recommending against bad books is good
for newcomers and you might be alright.
> I suppose this is plus for Google Groups because I couldn't have made
> this balls-up there :-)
There's no such thing as a plus for GG. It is perhaps the worst
Website in history.
SteveYoungTbird
>> I apologize. My mistake. I meant to send the post to c.l.j. but I did
>> indeed misdirect it and sent it directly to you.
>>
There is something strange happening here because I have noticed that
the post above was also sent to you via email as well as to c.l.j. and
all I did was replied to a c.l.j posting as usual.
>
> Of course. Now realize that recommending against bad books is good
> for newcomers and you might be alright.
You are very negative and contradictory . You do not recommend any
JavaScript books or websites, to you they are all bad, but often end a
posting wth STFW or RTFM.
The books and websites may not be perfect but remember that the ECMA
standards are also often unclear or vague.
We all have to start somewhere. So to prove me wrong and show your
positive side, tell me what material you would recommend to someone
wanting to start learning JavaScript?
>
>> I suppose this is plus for Google Groups because I couldn't have made
>> this balls-up there :-)
>
> There's no such thing as a plus for GG. It is perhaps the worst
> Website in history.
You have your alias there don't you?
David Mark
> David Mark wrote:
> >> I apologize. My mistake. I meant to send the post to c.l.j. but I did
> >> indeed misdirect it and sent it directly to you.
>
> There is something strange happening here because I have noticed that
> the post above was also sent to you via email as well as to c.l.j. and
> all I did was replied to a c.l.j posting as usual.
Yes, I noticed that happening as well. Something is rotten in...
where did you say you were from?
>
>
>
> > Of course. Now realize that recommending against bad books is good
> > for newcomers and you might be alright.
>
> You are very negative and contradictory .
Am I?
> You do not recommend any
> JavaScript books or websites, to you they are all bad,
I don't recommend any books. Who said I don't recommend any
Websites? There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
> but often end a
> posting wth STFW or RTFM.
No, that is Thomas. I virtually *never* say such things (much less
close with them.) :)
>
> The books and websites may not be perfect but remember that the ECMA
> standards are also often unclear or vague.
Which books and websites? The ECMA standard is on a couple of
different sites; though, I don't think I have *ever* cited it.
>
> We all have to start somewhere.
You should start by reading some of my posts (and please fix your
miserable newsreader.)
> So to prove me wrong and show your
> positive side, tell me what material you would recommend to someone
> wanting to start learning JavaScript?
Up yours.
>
> >> I suppose this is plus for Google Groups because I couldn't have made
> >> this balls-up there :-)
>
> > There's no such thing as a plus for GG. It is perhaps the worst
> > Website in history.
>
> You have your alias there don't you?
Alias?
SteveYoungTbird
David Mark
That's not an "alias" for GG (it's a junk gmail account.)
David Mark
The list appears to be a random collection of names. I rarely comment
on Stockton. VK has been MIA for years (thank heavens) and I pretty
much ignored him too. The inclusion of Crockford must refer to my
reluctance to recommend one of his books to beginners. And who
"abuses" Evertjan?
Same old story. Johnny can't read.
> I'm accusing you of bad judgement.
He's convicted--a two-time loser.
David Mark
I suppose to be clear to everyone I should point out that that is not
a swipe at you or Stockton. :)
Erwin Moller
>> The Flanagan book does contain a fair number of mistakes and has not
>> been updated.
>
> It should be removed.
>
As far as I am concerned: It should NOT be removed.
It is the best book I saw on JavaScript even though it has some mistakes.
That doesn't make the book useless.
I have been reading Flanagan since edition 2 I think, and learned a lot
(almost all I know about JS) from his books.
A book doesn't have to be perfect to be very worthwhile.
My advise is to keep Flanagan as nr. 1 book advise in the FAQ.
If you know of anything better, please let us know.
In the meantime: Flanagan is the best advise you can give to newbies and
avarage coders alike.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Dr J R Stockton
>On Sat, 2 May 2009 at 07:40:33, in comp.lang.javascript, Jorge wrote:
>>"JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
That might be useful for one starting out to write JavaScript in
isolation. My guess is that most new JavaScripters will need to be able
to read and maintain code written using the bad parts. ISTM that it
would have been better to have written JavaScript: The Good, the Bad,
and the Ugly ((Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo)), perhaps as a trilogy.
Regarding another comment : no sensible author of a well-established
book should have released a new edition within the last three years or
so, because a new edition of ECMA 262 has been expected "soon" for some
while. For example, FAQ 8.1 (2005) S.2.12 starts "The ECMAScript
Technical Committee is now working on the fourth edition,". The authors
should be busy polishing their final drafts of their new editions to
agree with ECMA 262 FD5, so that when ECMA 5 Final is released they will
have little to do before the presses can roll on their new editions.
Flanagan is about due for a new edition, anyway.
That line of argument suggests that now may not be the best time to
recommend buying a Crockford (May 2008).
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
John G Harris
wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 May 2009 at 07:40:33, in comp.lang.javascript, Jorge wrote:
>
>>>"JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
>
>That might be useful for one starting out to write JavaScript in
>isolation.
No. The preface says "This is not a book for beginners", which is true.
The preface also says "This is not a book for dummies", which is also
true.
John
--
John Harris
Garrett Smith
> 2 May 2009 12:48:15, Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>> It might be better to remove the books altogether, until something
>> better comes along.
>
>
> Unreasonable. Do you expect everybody to learn JavaScript without a
> printed reference? It is ludicrous to expect a book to be error-free.
>
It is more than a few errors. As stated, the book is organized around
"client side" and "core" javascript. That is old Netscape technology and
is irrelevant and misleading now. "alert" is not part of "client side
javascript", rather, it is a host object.
If it seems pedantic, consider that Wells Fargo of California (Wells
Fargo is a bank here in the US) has been looking for nearly 1 year.
I actually did a phone screen with the hiring manager for that job. He
decided to get very technical over the phone. He had several mistakes
and when I asked how he had arrived at his answer, he mentioned
Javascript: The definitive guide.
Now that book might be OK for learning a few things, but I do not
consider it to be an authoritative reference. In the case of Wells Fargo
manager, I feel he would have been better off with no book than with the
Flanagan book.
> I cannot believe "The Good Parts" to be appropriate as a primer; if it
> is included, it needs to be described.
>
> You should, however, take "book" liberally, for example not requiring an
> ISBN proper. Therefore, read page 241 of the PDF of ECMA 262 Final
> Draft 5 (it follows the page numbered 226) and/or the corresponding
> parts of 3rd Edition. In this respect the ISO/IEC standard is sadly
> inferior, cost-wise.
>
> Include ECMA 262-3 in Section 3.1, with ISSN or whatever if known, and
> price.
>
It is free, as has been stated and discussed here many, many times.
Perhapse after removal of the books (if they are removed), it would be
wise to link to the references section and state something along the
lines of:-
Most books on the subject are of very poor quality. Although many books
have been reviewed on the list, none are recommended.
The following list of books have been rejected from the list:-
[links to discussion of "The GOod Parts", "The Definitive Guide",
"Professional JavaScript", and other book discussions.
Please see the online resources section [link]. The ECMAScript
specification prints well and can serve as an excellent reference.
Garrett
Garrett Smith
>
>>> "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
>
> That might be useful for one starting out to write JavaScript in
> isolation. My guess is that most new JavaScripters will need to be able
> to read and maintain code written using the bad parts. ISTM that it
> would have been better to have written JavaScript: The Good, the Bad,
> and the Ugly ((Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo)), perhaps as a trilogy.
>
The book TOC contains:-
Chapter 1. Good Parts
...
Appendix A. Bad Parts
Appendix B. Awful Parts.
>
> Regarding another comment : no sensible author of a well-established
> book should have released a new edition within the last three years or
> so, because a new edition of ECMA 262 has been expected "soon" for some
> while. For example, FAQ 8.1 (2005) S.2.12 starts "The ECMAScript
> Technical Committee is now working on the fourth edition,".
The FAQ does not state that, exactly. If it did, it would be incorrect;
the new edition is ECMAScript 5.
| The ECMAScript Technical Committee is now working a new edition.
| More information can be found at: http://www.ecmascript.org/.
I think the date at the top of the FAQ and the dates on the
ecmascript.org pages and documents should hopefully be sufficient
indicators of freshness (or lack thereof, lest either document fall out
of date) to the reader.
Garrett
Jorge
> (...) The ECMAScript
> specification prints well and can serve as an excellent reference.
LOL, you must be kidding, nobody can learn JavaScript with this !
--
Jorge
Jorge
There are *many* *valuable* online resources missing in the online
resources section, as you know.
--
Jorge
Dr J R Stockton
4 May 2009 10:12:35, Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>> You should, however, take "book" liberally, for example not
>>requiring an
>> ISBN proper. Therefore, read page 241 of the PDF of ECMA 262 Final
>> Draft 5 (it follows the page numbered 226) and/or the corresponding
>> parts of 3rd Edition. In this respect the ISO/IEC standard is sadly
>> inferior, cost-wise.
>> Include ECMA 262-3 in Section 3.1, with ISSN or whatever if known,
>>and
>> price.
>>
>
>It is free, as has been stated and discussed here many, many times.
I think not. It has often been said here that the PDF is free (and
legal) to download. It has not often been said (I don't recall an
occasion) that "This Standard ECMA-262 is available free of charge in
printed form and as a file.". PRINTED - that means on paper.
Moreover, if we postulate that it has indeed been said here many times
that a printed version is free, then that makes it a Frequent Answer
which qualifies it for the FAQ.
Dr J R Stockton
4 May 2009 10:22:02, Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 May 2009 at 07:40:33, in comp.lang.javascript, Jorge wrote:
>>
>>>> "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
>> That might be useful for one starting out to write JavaScript in
>> isolation. My guess is that most new JavaScripters will need to be able
>> to read and maintain code written using the bad parts. ISTM that it
>> would have been better to have written JavaScript: The Good, the Bad,
>> and the Ugly ((Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo)), perhaps as a trilogy.
>>
>
>The book TOC contains:-
>
>Chapter 1. Good Parts
>...
>Appendix A. Bad Parts
>Appendix B. Awful Parts.
That is not enough to guarantee completeness - what about mediocre
parts?
>> Regarding another comment : no sensible author of a well-established
>> book should have released a new edition within the last three years or
>> so, because a new edition of ECMA 262 has been expected "soon" for some
>> while. For example, FAQ 8.1 (2005) S.2.12 starts "The ECMAScript
>> Technical Committee is now working on the fourth edition,".
>
>
>The FAQ does not state that, exactly. If it did, it would be incorrect;
>the new edition is ECMAScript 5.
FAQ 8.1 (2005) S.2.12 does state that, exactly; which justifies my 'has
been expected "soon" for some while'. I think you read and respond too
hastily.
>| The ECMAScript Technical Committee is now working a new edition.
>| More information can be found at: http://www.ecmascript.org/.
>
>I think the date at the top of the FAQ and the dates on the
>ecmascript.org pages and documents should hopefully be sufficient
>indicators of freshness (or lack thereof, lest either document fall out
>of date) to the reader.
You are suggesting that everyone reading the FAQ should have to resort
to ECMA to find which new edition they are working on. It would be far
more efficient to change the FAQ to "is now working on the 5th edition
(no 4th)". Remember who the FAQ is supposed to be written for; and that
they may not be reading it on-line.
Garrett Smith
What do I know? You have made attraction for media produced by Douglas
Crockford very clear to this group. I know that! You like Douglas
Crockford.
I have reviewed several of those vidon this very newsgroup.
I would provide the same type of review for books by David Mark or John
Resig, should either of these gentlemen decide upon tree publishing.
As far as your comment about "valuable" online resources, relevant
specifications and recommendations should considered valuable. Although
they may not be the most entertaining or engaging things to read, they
are valuable.
It valuable to have something that is both engaging, informative, and
accurate, so it could be used for learning and reference. It is very
important to consider accuracy as a criteria. Alas, I have not
encountered such book on javascript. Perhaps kangax will provide his
review on Nicholas Zakas' "Professional JavaScript for Web Developers."
There are a few significant benefits to online documentation:
* much easier to link to and cite
* easily edited/amended
Book errata is not the same thing as updating the original. Once a book
is on the shelves, the misconceptions contained therein will have a
lasting impression.
Garrett
Garrett Smith
> Jorge wrote:
>> On May 4, 7:12 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> (...)
>>> Please see the online resources section [link].(...)
>>
>> There are *many* *valuable* online resources missing in the online
>> resources section, as you know.
>>
>
> What do I know? You have made attraction for media produced by Douglas
> Crockford very clear to this group. I know that! You like Douglas
> Crockford.
>
> I have reviewed several of those vidon this very newsgroup.
>
Correction: "vidon" should be "videos on", as in:
"I have reviewed several of those videos on this very newsgroup."
And to be fair, I have probably reviewed only about three videos by D
Crockford here.
Garrett
Garrett Smith
Oh, you meant section 8.1 from the FAQ of 2005.
>
>> | The ECMAScript Technical Committee is now working a new edition.
>> | More information can be found at: http://www.ecmascript.org/.
>>
>> I think the date at the top of the FAQ and the dates on the
>> ecmascript.org pages and documents should hopefully be sufficient
>> indicators of freshness (or lack thereof, lest either document fall out
>> of date) to the reader.
>
> You are suggesting that everyone reading the FAQ should have to resort
> to ECMA to find which new edition they are working on. It would be far
> more efficient to change the FAQ to "is now working on the 5th edition
> (no 4th)". Remember who the FAQ is supposed to be written for; and that
> they may not be reading it on-line.
>
How about:-
| The ECMAScript Technical Committee is now working on ECMAScript, 5th
| Edition (the 4th edition was abandoned). More information can be found
| at: http://www.ecmascript.org/.
?
Garrett
Jorge
Who gives a damn about your reviews ?
Crockford is Crockford, and you are... who you are ?
Crockford is an old, experienced person that has been into programming
computers since (likely) before you were even born. Crockford happens
to deliver, gems like JSON, JSLINT, JSMIN... he's as well the putative
father the key ideas (mainly: keep it small) behind the forthcoming
5th edition of ECMAScript.(*)
So, if there are online, for free, ~16 videos about JavaScript by Mr.
Crockford no more no less, they ought to the listed in the online
resources FAQ, no matter what the feelings of (you) a certain guy
called smith-who are, or those of the usual bunch of regular
idio^H^H^H^H^Hs in cljs.
(*)http://web.archive.org/web/20020405143250/www.crockford.com/
javascript/recommend.html
(*)http://www.crockford.com/javascript/recommend.html
--
Jorge.
David Mark
> On May 5, 6:44 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Garrett Smith wrote:
> > > Jorge wrote:
> > >> On May 4, 7:12 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> (...)
> > >>> Please see the online resources section [link].(...)
>
> > >> There are *many* *valuable* online resources missing in the online
> > >> resources section, as you know.
>
> > > What do I know? You have made attraction for media produced by Douglas
> > > Crockford very clear to this group. I know that! You like Douglas
> > > Crockford.
>
> > > I have reviewed several of those vidon this very newsgroup.
>
> > Correction: "vidon" should be "videos on", as in:
>
> > "I have reviewed several of those videos on this very newsgroup."
>
> > And to be fair, I have probably reviewed only about three videos by D
> > Crockford here.
>
> Who gives a damn about your reviews ?
> Crockford is Crockford, and you are... who you are ?
Why, he's the one tasked with reviewing videos for the FAQ.
>
> Crockford is an old, experienced person that has been into programming
> computers since (likely) before you were even born. Crockford happens
> to deliver, gems like JSON, JSLINT, JSMIN... he's as well the putative
And this has what to do with the book in question?
> father the key ideas (mainly: keep it small) behind the forthcoming
> 5th edition of ECMAScript.(*)
So?
>
> So, if there are online, for free, ~16 videos about JavaScript by Mr.
> Crockford no more no less, they ought to the listed in the online
> resources FAQ, no matter what the feelings of (you) a certain guy
> called smith-who are, or those of the usual bunch of regular
> idio^H^H^H^H^Hs in cljs.
That's the usual nonsense that the name on the library/book/video
means anything.
Yes, Crockford is an expert on the Javascript language. No, he's not
infallible; in fact, he (like most of us) has been known to give bad
advice on the subject. And the language seems to be the subject of
this group in name only. The discussions typically revolve around
browser scripting. Any Crockford videos to share on that subject?
And stop forging, "Jorge." You're a man without a country at this
point.
[snip]
John G Harris
<snip>
>Who gives a damn about your reviews ?
>Crockford is Crockford, and you are... who you are ?
>
>Crockford is an old, experienced person that has been into programming
>computers since (likely) before you were even born.
He wears a T shirt and a beard at work, so he must be a Real Programmer.
He speaks! Bow down and listen to the Real Programmer!
> Crockford happens
>to deliver, gems like JSON, JSLINT, JSMIN...
I notice you haven't mentioned his choice of 'good parts'.
>he's as well the putative
>father the key ideas (mainly: keep it small) behind the forthcoming
>5th edition of ECMAScript.(*)
<snip>
How do you keep it small when nothing is being taken out?
John
--
John Harris
Garrett Smith
> On May 5, 6:44 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> Jorge wrote:
>>>> On May 4, 7:12 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> (...)
>>>>> Please see the online resources section [link].(...)
>>>> There are *many* *valuable* online resources missing in the online
>>>> resources section, as you know.
>>> What do I know? You have made attraction for media produced by Douglas
>>> Crockford very clear to this group. I know that! You like Douglas
>>> Crockford.
>>> I have reviewed several of those vidon this very newsgroup.
>> Correction: "vidon" should be "videos on", as in:
>>
>> "I have reviewed several of those videos on this very newsgroup."
>>
>> And to be fair, I have probably reviewed only about three videos by D
>> Crockford here.
>
>
> Who gives a damn about your reviews ?
The person who cares about the technical review would have to be capable
of understanding the subject matter at hand and the review. I already
posted that above.
> Crockford is Crockford, and you are... who you are ?
>
> Crockford is an old, experienced person that has been into programming
> computers since (likely) before you were even born. Crockford happens
> to deliver, gems like JSON, JSLINT, JSMIN... he's as well the putative
> father the key ideas (mainly: keep it small) behind the forthcoming
> 5th edition of ECMAScript.(*)
>
Crockford's age has as much relevance as my age, or even your age, for
that matter.
Being old is not an implication to shitting ice cream.
Crockford's material should be reviewed as any material should be,
whether by me or D Mark, or kangax or anyone.
The review should not be influenced by his age, nor the software he has
produced.
I believe that your are way way off by calling D Crockford the "putative
father ..." behind ECMAScript, 5th Edition.
> So, if there are online, for free, ~16 videos about JavaScript by Mr.
> Crockford no more no less, they ought to the listed in the online
> resources FAQ, no matter what the feelings of (you) a certain guy
> called smith-who are, or those of the usual bunch of regular
> idio^H^H^H^H^Hs in cljs.
Insulting all of the regulars by calling us idiots is not really a good
way to engage in technical discussion.
I would attribute your behavior to your what seems to be religious
fanaticism for D Crockford. It does not help D Crockford in any way. It
does not help you. Insulting all of us doesn't help the group.
You should stop.
Garrett
Dr J R Stockton
4 May 2009 21:56:57, Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>How about:-
>| The ECMAScript Technical Committee is now working on ECMAScript, 5th
>| Edition (the 4th edition was abandoned). More information can be
>found
>| at: http://www.ecmascript.org/.
>
Yes, though you could add a condensation of
The ECMAScript, Fifth Edition Candidate Specification is now publicly
available from the Ecma International web site (direct link here).
Technical experts are invited to review the candidate specification and
submit feedback by July 15, 2009 to ES5-fe...@Ecma-International.org.
Dr J R Stockton
4 May 2009 21:05:24, Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>There are a few significant benefits to online documentation:
> * much easier to link to and cite
> * easily edited/amended
>
>Book errata is not the same thing as updating the original. Once a book
>is on the shelves, the misconceptions contained therein will have a
>lasting impression.
There are a few significant benefits to formal printed documentation:
* Easy to cite : an ISBN suffices
* Easily annotated by the owner with a pencil
* Permanently available
* Can be referred to without using screen space
* Can safely be used in public
* Highly legible, unlike much web material
Patient Guy
> David Mark wrote:
>> On May 2, 3:48 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jorge wrote:
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --- FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --- Although many books have been reviewed, most are quite bad and
>>>> cannot be recommended.
>>>> The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js regulars
>>>> and has been reviewed and discussed (see the archives).
>>>> "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
>>>> ISBN 10: 0-596-51774-2 | ISBN 13: 9780596517748
>>>> http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/
>>>> --
>>>> Jorge.
>>> Do you want that book listed and the others removed?
>>
>> In this regard, what does it matter what "Jorge" wants?
>
> In this regard, what does it matter what David Mark wants?
Very good point!
>>>
>>> It might be better to remove the books altogether, until something
>>> better comes along.
>
> That would suit David because, as he constantly reminds us, he is
> bringing out a book soon. However he says that it won't be a reference
> book so we don't quite know what to expect.
>>
>> Should just be a note to save your money.
>
> How can you expect that anyone can learn JavaScript it you simply
> state that all texts are rubbish and offer no alternatives? Together
> David Mark and Thomas Lahn have made c.l.j. a really scary place for
> beginners to ask questions. Between them have turned c.l.j. into their
> own private stand for showing off how much they know about ECMAScript
> and for abusing anyone who is not as "clever" as they are. The people
> that really offered useful advice for novices (Dr. Stockton, Douglas
> Crockford, Evertjan, VK .......) either answer a lot less or not at
> all, presumably to avoid the pointless abuse they face from our two
> permanent adolescents.
> Sorry for the tirade but it makes me mad!
Unfortunately every forum that allows the entirety of humanity to
participate is certainly likely to have as a few of its posters those who
chime in and who are the VERY EPITOME of arrogant. ill-mannered prima
donnas as are the posters whom you have named.
These arrogant prima donnas count on others being intimidated by their
antics and bad behavior.
You should not really let yourself be intimidated by their supercilious
and outrageous conduct.
These jerks typically make errors themselves, and they invite others to
hold them up to ridicule, judged by their own standards.
Surely these "newsgroup brats" delude themselves into believing they earn
the respect of the newsgroup readership by adopting unnecessarily a tone
in their responses that insult and belittle other posters, by dwelling on
the petty mistakes of message format of thread-starters, rather than
writing responses that focus on concise solutions relevant to what is
troubling the poster. (At least this is now the impression that that
newsgroup brats have now left.)
By the way, one of the more polite and CLEARLY KNOWLEDGEABLE posters to
this newsgroup is Martin Honnen. He is a model to all: providing polite
responses that I have never seen make an attempt to belittle, insult, or
needlessly scold posters about dotted i's and crossed t's---and no, I am
NOT talking about Javascript code where dotted i's and crossed t's are
essential. Cornford is a knowledgeable poster too whom I think avoids the
childish ways of the ill-mannered.
Here's a solution that might work: the next time you notice ANY poster,
not just the prima donna regulars, responding in a way that is insulting,
intimidating, or belitting, point it out. I have a feeling that these
posters will actually reflect on their poor manners and make a best effort
at giving the model response.
Patient Guy
comp.lang.javascript:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <gti827$1nq$1...@news.motzarella.org>, Sat,
> 2 May 2009 12:48:15, Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>>
>>It might be better to remove the books altogether, until something
>>better comes along.
>
>
> Unreasonable. Do you expect everybody to learn JavaScript without a
> printed reference? It is ludicrous to expect a book to be error-free.
Absolutely. In fact, many people don't buy the first edition of a text on
many academic subjects and wait for the 2nd edition to come out because it
catches a great many errors caught by the wider readership with the
publication of the first.
> I cannot believe "The Good Parts" to be appropriate as a primer; if it
> is included, it needs to be described.
>
> You should, however, take "book" liberally, for example not requiring an
> ISBN proper. Therefore, read page 241 of the PDF of ECMA 262 Final
> Draft 5 (it follows the page numbered 226) and/or the corresponding
> parts of 3rd Edition. In this respect the ISO/IEC standard is sadly
> inferior, cost-wise.
There are a great many RESOURCES that are good, and yes, they all don't
have an ISBN. Quite a few books---that is, resources with an ISBN---can
be published with minimal to no peer review.
The value of a resource might be more readily assessed by new bibliometric
measures or methodologies that incorporate the factor of peer review.
David Mark
> SteveYoungTbird <stephen.yo...@chello.at> wrote in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>
>
> > David Mark wrote:
> >> On May 2, 3:48 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Jorge wrote:
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> --- FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> --- Although many books have been reviewed, most are quite bad and
> >>>> cannot be recommended.
> >>>> The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js regulars
> >>>> and has been reviewed and discussed (see the archives).
> >>>> "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
> >>>> ISBN 10: 0-596-51774-2 | ISBN 13: 9780596517748
> >>>>http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jorge.
> >>> Do you want that book listed and the others removed?
>
> >> In this regard, what does it matter what "Jorge" wants?
>
> > In this regard, what does it matter what David Mark wants?
>
> Very good point!
Except that you don't know "Jorge" or David Mark, do you?
[snip histrionics]
Yes, we know. You have no idea what you are ranting about. Thanks.
Tim Streater
Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Being old is not an implication to shitting ice cream.
I can't parse this. Care to rephrase in English?
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
Patient Guy
> On May 10, 8:40�am, Patient Guy <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote:
>> SteveYoungTbird <stephen.yo...@chello.at> wrote in
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>
>>
>> > David Mark wrote:
>> >> On May 2, 3:48 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Jorge wrote:
>> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>> --- --- FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
>> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>> --- --- Although many books have been reviewed, most are quite
>> >>>> bad and cannot be recommended.
>> >>>> The following list of books been approved by some c.l.js
>> >>>> regulars and has been reviewed and discussed (see the archives).
>> >>>> "JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
>> >>>> ISBN 10: 0-596-51774-2 | ISBN 13: 9780596517748
>> >>>>http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jorge.
>> >>> Do you want that book listed and the others removed?
>>
>> >> In this regard, what does it matter what "Jorge" wants?
>>
>> > In this regard, what does it matter what David Mark wants?
>>
>> Very good point!
>
> Except that you don't know "Jorge" or David Mark, do you?
I know that if it is their opinion that there is nothing out there at all
sufficiently useful to give beginners instruction in ECMAScript, and that
any such instructional materials should be error-free---and usually by
their own supercilious standards----then I now know enough that their
opinions on the subject are next to worthless.
It would much more productive actually for the FAQ and any other web site
that would like to be a point of gravitation on the subject of ECMAScript
to list ALL published materials whose purpose it is to treat ECMAScript on
some level.
This site would provide a (moderated) forum where a (sticky) thread is
started whose subject is the title of a book and its author's/authors'
name(s) with the year and edition, and then all users are encouraged to
post a review and to point out in as much detail as they like the errors
in the book. Some authors probably monitor this and other forums and
would probably not mind their errors being shown to them. Certainly the
reader of this newsgroup would then get all points of view...from the
author of the book as well as the persnickety critics who (may have)
actually read the book.
As far as rejecting published works for errors found in them? I am going
over N.C. Zakas' _Professional Javascript for Web Developers_ (2005), and
while I find a particular way in which the author worded something that
was confusing (and had to be tested to eliminate the confusion), I think
that this book is a very good book for intermediate and even advanced
users of all things ECMAScript. Zakas has a new 2nd edition of this book
published at the start of this year.
In other words, I found something to disagree with the author about---is
what he did an error, because I had a problem with the style of his
wording?---but it does not mean that the entire tome is useless, which
seems to be the standard under which reading materials are judged
acceptable or unacceptable by a few of the newsgroup's regular prima
donnas.
Surely many of the critics of the books-not-recommended around here can
operate their own web site in which they are serving an article wherein
they have summarized (reviewed) the book and have given a page-by-page
detailed discussion of just where the authors erred or otherwise went
wrong.
For books "riddled" with errors, and so as not to challenge a critic
unnecessarily for his "valuable time," how about if we say that if a book
has some sufficient number of egregious errors (say an arbitrary number of
25? 50?), then if the critic writes a web article detailing those 25 or 50
errors, he has proved to everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt that (1) he
certainly knows what he himself is talking about, and (2) the book is not
even worthy of burning, much less reading?
The point here is that it is NOT enough to say, "this book is not
recommended reading," but rather to PROVE in a small way why it is not
recommended reading, and to direct the interested person to a
discussion/review/critique/analysis that provides that proof. This would
be linked to the FAQ and come out of its server.
[snip snide reply]
John G Harris
wrote:
<snip>
>It would much more productive actually for the FAQ and any other web site
>that would like to be a point of gravitation on the subject of ECMAScript
>to list ALL published materials whose purpose it is to treat ECMAScript on
>some level.
<snip>
Are you really willing to spend time writing something about the web
site that says
The general syntax for if statements is:
if (condition) {action1} else {action2};
among other things.
John
--
John Harris
Patient Guy
The FAQ and the subject of this thread is "books recommended," not about
this or that person who feels that after spending a couple of hours
learning the language, he's ready to put up an article on his web site
intended to impress his grandmother, which constitutes the traffic to that
site.
I am talking about programs of instruction---published as (text) books---
whose production involves the investment of a serious amount of time by
its author(s) and whom a publisher acknowledges as having the serious
potential of being bought in the thousands to hundreds of thousands.
I am easily susceptible to the belief that the serious amateur who wants
to experiment with making interactive web pages and who wants to immerse
himself quickly into it is probably not very likely to see if he can learn
ECMAScript jumping from web page to web page, which he probably suspects
are error-filled or which make use of bad practices. He's likely to buy a
"definitive" book (guide & reference) on it.
Richard Cornford
<snip>
> I am easily susceptible to the belief that the serious amateur
> He's likely to buy a
> "definitive" book (guide & reference) on it.
You mean attempt to buy. If no such thing exits the attempt must fail.
Richard.
John G Harris
wrote:
<snip>
>The FAQ and the subject of this thread is "books recommended," not about
>this or that person who feels that after spending a couple of hours
>learning the language, he's ready to put up an article on his web site
>intended to impress his grandmother, which constitutes the traffic to that
>site.
<snip>
So we agree : a publication can be so bad that you needn't write an
essay on it. It should just be dismissed as "Toxic. Don't read."
John
--
John Harris
Patient Guy
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 at 10:36:36, in comp.lang.javascript, Patient Guy
I was talking about web sites here, not books. If you qualify this as a
"publication," then clearly you must make this clear so that we can define
terms.
If someone spent 5 minutes putting a bad web site together, yes, you can
spend 5 seconds tearing it apart and stomping on what's left.
But if he spent 100 hours putting a book together, I think he is owed the
sufficient courtesy, if not respect, of someone spending a half hour
putting a list of points together that plumb through its badness, which as
I said, such an analysis establishes the credibility of the critic while
ipso facto making the strong case to stop others from thinking the author
and his work to be authoritative.
David Mark
> John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in comp.lang.javascript:
>
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009 at 10:36:36, in comp.lang.javascript, Patient Guy
> > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >>The FAQ and the subject of this thread is "books recommended," not
> >>about this or that person who feels that after spending a couple of
> >>hours learning the language, he's ready to put up an article on his
> >>web site intended to impress his grandmother, which constitutes the
> >>traffic to that site.
> > <snip>
>
> > So we agree : a publication can be so bad that you needn't write an
> > essay on it. It should just be dismissed as "Toxic. Don't read."
>
> I was talking about web sites here, not books. If you qualify this as a
> "publication," then clearly you must make this clear so that we can define
> terms.
>
> If someone spent 5 minutes putting a bad web site together, yes, you can
> spend 5 seconds tearing it apart and stomping on what's left.
Happens all the time.
>
> But if he spent 100 hours putting a book together, I think he is owed the
> sufficient courtesy, if not respect, of someone spending a half hour
> putting a list of points together that plumb through its badness, which as
> I said, such an analysis establishes the credibility of the critic while
> ipso facto making the strong case to stop others from thinking the author
> and his work to be authoritative.
Your assumption seems to be that this has not been done. It has, for
most, if not all of the popular Javascript books. Search the archive.
Peter Michaux
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to plough through this big discussion book discussion
again.
I think Flanagan's Fifth edition should stay in the FAQ. It is useful.
It was useful to me today, and a couple days ago, and a few days
before that too.
I think Crockford's book should be added to the FAQ. It is the only
book that gives the reader a few starting points to think about the
language in very different ways than it normally is.
Peter
Garrett Smith
I wouldn't recommend ECMA-262 for front-end web developer with no
programming background who is starting to learn javascript.
However, someone with a good background in 3GL would probably find
ECMA-262 useful.
ECMA-262 is an implementation specification; not a how-to guide.
Regardless, it can be useful learning material, even though it is not an
easy-read.
Garrett
Jorge
> Regardless, it can be useful learning material, even though it is not an
> easy-read.
Yep, I agree with you on that.
--
Jorge.
John G Harris
wrote:
>Jorge wrote:
>> On May 4, 7:12 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> (...) The ECMAScript
>>> specification prints well and can serve as an excellent reference.
>>> (...)
>> LOL, you must be kidding, nobody can learn JavaScript with this !
>>
>
>I wouldn't recommend ECMA-262 for front-end web developer with no
>programming background who is starting to learn javascript.
Very true.
>However, someone with a good background in 3GL would probably find
>ECMA-262 useful.
>
>ECMA-262 is an implementation specification; not a how-to guide.
>Regardless, it can be useful learning material, even though it is not
>an easy-read.
In particular, it tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth about the core language. For instance, it's the place to go if you
want to know what the 'this' value is really going to be, or what
exactly is tested by instanceof.
John
--
John Harris
Dr J R Stockton
september.org>, Fri, 29 May 2009 22:36:31, Garrett Smith
<dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
It's more than somewhat questionable as to whether it is a book.
Given the price for a printed-on-paper version and the price for a PDF
as linked to by the FAQ, I doubt whether many will buy the paper
version.
However, any programmer who can read the FAQ can read and understand at
least some of ECMA, so the PDF represents good value for money even for
impecunious dial-up users.
I suggest footnoting the Books section with something expressing "you
should also have for reference the free ECMA PDF, see Section ...".
Barcodes, in js-misc1.htm, is doing well in Firefox, Opera,
Chrome; but there are evident problems with some displays in
IE7 & Safari - details in page - comments?
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
Garrett Smith
> On May 1, 4:00 pm, "FAQ server" <javascr...@dotinternet.be> wrote:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not going to plough through this big discussion book discussion
> again.
>
> I think Flanagan's Fifth edition should stay in the FAQ. It is useful.
> It was useful to me today, and a couple days ago, and a few days
> before that too.
>
> I think Crockford's book should be added to the FAQ.
Did you read the reviews I posted?
My idea is that reviews for the book should be linked from the FAQ.
That would seem to satisfy the critics and fans alike.
Garrett
Eric Bednarz
> Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>>ECMA-262 is an implementation specification; not a how-to guide.
>>Regardless, it can be useful learning material, even though it is not
>>an easy-read.
> Given the price for a printed-on-paper version and the price for a PDF
> as linked to by the FAQ, I doubt whether many will buy the paper
> version.
It would be very difficult to buy a printed copy of ECMA-262 as it
is distributed free of charge (in the case of the Netherlands that
included free shipping, not sure about geographical limitations of
that).
–-
It is always a good idea to read the back matter.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Dr J R Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> posted:
>>> ECMA-262 is an implementation specification; not a how-to guide.
>>> Regardless, it can be useful learning material, even though it is not
>>> an easy-read.
>
>> Given the price for a printed-on-paper version and the price for a PDF
>> as linked to by the FAQ, I doubt whether many will buy the paper
>> version.
>
> It would be very difficult to buy a printed copy of ECMA-262 as it
> is distributed free of charge (in the case of the Netherlands that
> included free shipping, not sure about geographical limitations of
> that).
You should know that the good doctor does not accept ECMA-262 as the
ECMAScript Specification; it is too much of the continent for his taste.
He would rather argument with not wanting to order the printed version of
ISO/IEC 16262:2002 for CHF 238.00.
PointedEars
Dr J R Stockton
1 Jun 2009 14:00:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de>
posted:
Well, if you prefer an older version with (I believe) more errors ...
But I was no doubt thinking of the printed version of either ISO/IEC
16262 or of ISO 8601.
How many here would get a printed version of ECMA, knowing the PDF to be
available?