FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript? (2009-03-24)
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 on the list.
_"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.
>
> (conceited) c.l.js regulars
> (...)
Do yourself a favor and read this too:
"JavaScript: The Good Parts", by Douglas Crockford.
ISBN 10: 0-596-51774-2 | ISBN 13: 9780596517748
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/
--
Jorge.
David Mark
Dunno. I think that is pre-epiphany Crockford. Probably not of
interest to beginners.
There will be a new book on that list eventually though (perhaps as
early as this summer.) I'm sure I will post salient bits for review
*before* publication. Will focus on how to do everything the
libraries do in a manner appropriate for browser scripting. Will
include a license for My Library (frame it, you won't need it.) All
that and more in:
"You *Can* Do That with Javascript"
- or -
"Bring Me the Head of John Resig"
John G Harris
>On Mar 24, 1:00 am, "FAQ server" <javascr...@dotinternet.be> 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 have been approved by some
>> (conceited) c.l.js regulars
Forging a quote is a despicable thing to do. It destroys your
reputation.
John
--
John Harris
John G Harris
which contains such jewels as
"JavaScript (aka JScript)" p4
and
"A name is a letter optionally followed by one or more letters, digits,
or underbars." p6
John
--
John Harris
Dr J R Stockton
dk>, Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:00:02, FAQ server <javas...@dotinternet.be>
posted:
>FAQ Topic - What books are recommended for javascript?
Considering other recent responses : ISTM that the question and/or its
answers need to be subdivided. One should consider various classes of
user. Classes include :-
Those beginning their programming with JavaScript
They need something straightforward, which does not pretend to be
complete, and which does not presume a knowledge of for loops, while
loops, subroutines, I/O, the distinction between Number and String, and
other things common to many programming languages. A "Dummies" book
could be suitable. It need not include every property and method of
every Object, as long as it does not appear to do so. Flanagan &
Goodman would not serve.
Those who know programming in general
They understand general programming concepts in a procedural language,
but not necessarily one that looks as much like JavaScript as C, C++,
Java do. They probably want to see examples of common things as done in
JavaScript - structures as above, and algorithms such as (non-default)
Sort, and Shuffle, and how to tackle a straightforward business
application.
Those who just want a reference book
They want something corresponding, in a more user-friendly manner, to
ISO/IEC 16262 - nothing less, and little more (because a good reference
book should be easier to handle, physically, than Goodman or Flanagan in
paperback).
Those who are competent JavaScripters already
They are ready for books resembling what I suspect Crockford to be like.
So : either the question should be subdivided, or the answers need to be
briefly annotated to give a sufficient indication of the type of book.
Programmers can be divided in another way into two classes - those who
are about to learn, by coding, the prevalence of error; and those who
have already learnt it. Therefore, in considering books to recommend,
one should not be over-concerned with errors of detail (though the
examples must all appear to work properly). The first thing to learn is
to trust nothing, except where several authorities are clearly answering
*your* question, and are in agreement, or where you have tested it,
sufficiently, yourself.
One cannot learn how to use a programming language from a single source.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
John G Harris
Stockton wrote:
<snip>
>Therefore, in considering books to recommend,
>one should not be over-concerned with errors of detail
<snip>
Would you complain if an author taught beginners to do
if (a == true) ...
Is that a detail or a wicked thing to teach ? Is there a dividing line ?
John
--
John Harris
David Mark
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 at 19:58:21, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R
>
> Stockton wrote:
>
> <snip>>Therefore, in considering books to recommend,
> >one should not be over-concerned with errors of detail
>
> <snip>
>
> Would you complain if an author taught beginners to do
>
> if (a == true) ...
I wouldn't recommend their book(s).
>
> Is that a detail or a wicked thing to teach ? Is there a dividing line ?
That's a bad one.
Dr J R Stockton
8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:26:49, John G Harris
<jo...@nospam.demon.co.uk> posted:
It is not an error; it is syntactically correct and has the expected
effect. I've seen the equivalent in other languages; some people claim
that it's easier to understand.
A statement that if (a) should not be used would have an arguable
merit; one that it could not be used would have none.
But if (a == true) ... would be an error, or possibly two or three
errors [*], in a work purporting to teach only style and elegance.
To say that "new Date().valueOf() gives the number of milliseconds
since January 1st 1970" would be to provide three errors, one being less
unimportant in the UK than some might think.
One certainly should not be concerned with ONE error in a book; all
factual books have them. Though I did get a nice E-mail back from a
well-known author after I'd pointed out that 174165497408...608860499
was not the intended 87-digit prime factor of (Math.pow(3, 349)-1)/2
since (as you can see) it had a 3 missing.
[*] Should it be if (true == a) or if (a) ?
Or even if (a === true) ?
--
(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
Stockton wrote:
>In comp.lang.javascript message <NP5$l2Cp8j...@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD0
>8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:26:49, John G Harris
><jo...@nospam.demon.co.uk> posted:
>>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 at 19:58:21, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R
>>Stockton wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>Therefore, in considering books to recommend,
>>>one should not be over-concerned with errors of detail
>> <snip>
>>
>>Would you complain if an author taught beginners to do
>>
>> if (a == true) ...
>>
>>Is that a detail or a wicked thing to teach ? Is there a dividing line ?
>
>
>It is not an error; it is syntactically correct and has the expected
>effect.
On the other hand you said in msg: FJUtefGj...@merlyn.demon.co.uk,
dated 19 Jun 2006, that :
"AFAICS it is never necessary to use ==true or ==false, and doing so
indicates a fundamental lack of understanding."
>One certainly should not be concerned with ONE error in a book; all
>factual books have them.
<snip>
Would you really recommend an author who has exhibited a "fundamental
lack of understanding". ?
John
--
John Harris