Re: A Newbie's Must-Have Library

[Andy Dingley]

On 15 May, 04:55, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_.. [e-mail] e:

Well, in case anyone should need to know in the near future, here are
my recommendations for best beginner's books:

Or in another universe, where things are understood and site code is
stable and reliable, beginners don't even think about reading
JavaScript books until they've written some HTML and CSS.

You need it _VERY_ rarely. Using it without a foundation of good HTML
understanding leads to trouble. Few people can learn both from scratch
simultaneously, so it's useful to really grok the first first, which
means getting some hands-on and actually building content that way.

I write sites that use JavaScript for a vanishingly small proportion
of pages. They just don't need it. I work (for money) on complex web
apps that are built up almost entirely of JavaScript. We don't write
this by hand, because it's impossible to write large amounts of
JavaScript in an efficient manner. This stuff is all generated server-
side by frameworks like JSF & Facelets.

[Ben C]

On 2008-05-15, Andy Dingley <di*****@codesm iths.comwrote:
[...]

We don't write this by hand, because it's impossible to write large
amounts of JavaScript in an efficient manner.

Why? What's wrong with it?

[Henry]

On May 15, 10:44 am, Andy Dingley wrote:

On 15 May, 04:55, Prisoner at War wrote:

>Well, in case anyone should need to know in the near future,
here are my recommendations for best beginner's books:

Or in another universe, where things are understood and site
code is stable and reliable, beginners don't even think about
reading JavaScript books until they've written some HTML and
CSS.

<snip>

Would that also be the universe where novices appreciate that the only
things that they are in a position to sensibly say about a book they
read is how easy it was for them to read and understand, and nothing
about the quality of any advice/examples given or the technical
accuracy of the content? Given that the technical accuracy of
javascript books tends to be low, and the advice they give ranges from
the poor to the actively dangerous, an individual's ability to judge
those types of things seems a reasonable pre-request for taking their
book recommendations seriously.

[Andy Dingley]

On 15 May, 11:06, Ben C <spams...@spam. eggswrote:

On 2008-05-15, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesm iths.comwrote:

We don't write this by hand, because it's impossible to write large
amounts of JavaScript in an efficient manner.

Why? What's wrong with it?

Crappy architectural model that's about 20 years old, leading to a
piss-poor version of O-O

Floppy syntax, meaning that sloppy coding is hidden, and there's room
for too many semantic errors under that sloppy code.

No clear definition of the language standard, leading to widespread
proprietary extension. When you code "JS" should you be coding to the
ECMAScript standard, JScript, or a JavaScript? If you inherit a body
of code, what is it, and is it conformant to your project standards?

[Dr J R Stockton]

On May 15, 10:44*am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesm iths.comwrote:

On 15 May, 04:55, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_.. [e-mail] e:

Well, in case anyone should need to know in the near future, here are
my recommendations for best beginner's books:

I think that we have already read enough to learn what your opinion is
worth.

Or in another universe, where things are understood and site code is
stable and reliable, beginners don't even think about reading
JavaScript books until they've written some HTML and CSS.

You need it _VERY_ rarely. Using it without a foundation of good HTML
understanding leads to trouble. Few people can learn both from scratch
simultaneously, so it's useful to really grok the first first, which
means getting some hands-on and actually building content that way.

I write sites that use JavaScript for a vanishingly small proportion
of pages. They just don't need it. I work (for money) on complex web
apps that are built up almost entirely of JavaScript. We don't write
this by hand, because it's impossible to write large amounts of
JavaScript in an efficient manner. This stuff is all generated server-
side by frameworks like JSF & Facelets.

You are considering only a minority of the possible types of use of
Javascript in web pages - just, in fact, the commercially-dominant
case.

Observe, for example, the scripting on many of the web pages of NASA
and associates.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
Mail: J.R.""""""""@ph ysics.org or (better) via Home Page at
Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/>
FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ...

[Andy Dingley]

On 15 May, 12:49, Dr J R Stockton <J.R.Stock...@p hysics.orgwrote :

Observe, for example, the scripting on many of the web pages of NASA
and associates.

So do you advocate that newbies should start out with an attitude of,
"Match NASA's complexity from the start" ?

[Prisoner at War]

You sound like a scorned woman, but I don't know what I've ever done
to you.

On May 15, 7:49 am, Dr J R Stockton <J.R.Stock...@p hysics.orgwrote :

>

I think that we have already read enough to learn what your opinion is
worth.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
Mail: J.R.""""""""@ph ysics.org or (better) via Home Page at
Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/>
FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ...

[Prisoner at War]

On May 15, 7:11 am, Henry <rcornf...@rain drop.co.ukwrote :

>

Would that also be the universe where novices appreciate that the only
things that they are in a position to sensibly say about a book they
read is how easy it was for them to read and understand, and nothing
about the quality of any advice/examples given or the technical
accuracy of the content?

Did I say these books were technically accurate? In fact, I even
noted that "The Book of JavaScript" contains outdated practices.

Given that the technical accuracy of
javascript books tends to be low, and the advice they give ranges from
the poor to the actively dangerous, an individual's ability to judge
those types of things seems a reasonable pre-request for taking their
book recommendations seriously.

These books are for newbies. That means "accessibility, " first and
foremost. As a newbie, I know what works for newbies who aren't
programmers.

However, it's an unfortunate consequence of "internet culture" that
books, particularly technical books though increasingly all books, are
released with all kinds of errors, from orthographical to just plain
wrong information.

So, a caveat to my review: LOOK UP THE BOOKS' ERRATA PAGES ON THE WEB
-- AND KNOW THAT NOT ALL ERRATA HAVE EVEN BEEN DOCUMENTED.

[Prisoner at War]

On May 15, 5:44 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesm iths.comwrote:

>

Or in another universe, where things are understood and site code is
stable and reliable, beginners don't even think about reading
JavaScript books until they've written some HTML and CSS.

Actually, I'm still awaiting the book that teaches all three right
from the get-go: they are but three aspects of a greater whole, and
thus a holistic approach right from the beginning would be great. I
mean, it wasn't until perusing my third book that I really began to
appreciate the DOM, and what it means for web development....

You need it _VERY_ rarely.

I would tend to agree, but as per my "Contradict ion of Advice?" thread
at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....0e87cba80582fd,
I have to wonder whether it's *ever* necessary, then -- I mean, is the
only legitimate use of JavaScript for bra-size calculators?? 8->

Using it without a foundation of good HTML
understanding leads to trouble. Few people can learn both from scratch
simultaneously, so it's useful to really grok the first first, which
means getting some hands-on and actually building content that way.

(X)HTML can be learned in one day, and mastered in about two or
three. CSS, maybe a week to learn, and months to master. Depending
on just how precisely "simultaneously " is defined, I think it's very
possible to grok them all at once.

I write sites that use JavaScript for a vanishingly small proportion
of pages. They just don't need it. I work (for money) on complex web
apps that are built up almost entirely of JavaScript. We don't write
this by hand, because it's impossible to write large amounts of
JavaScript in an efficient manner. This stuff is all generated server-
side by frameworks like JSF & Facelets.

Wow, that's interesting...I had no idea JavaScript was so
"inefficient".. .I thought it was supposed to be "more efficient" (if
less powerful) than CGI???

[Prisoner at War]

On May 16, 9:21 pm, joebloe <remid0d...@gma il.comwrote:

>

I suppose that on the one hand you can say that JavaScript is
overused; but on the other hand, there are some of us who believe
(correctly so) that it is a powerful and severely underutilized
programming environment. A general purpose programming language with
little need for boilerplate and with convenient access to the de facto
user interface standard? Sign me up. Oh, wait, I'm already signed up.

Yeah, that's the spirit!

Though I'm a newbie...so in what ways are JavaScript severely
underutilized?? Just curious.

But yeah, JavaScript has actually revived my long-dormant interest in
computer programming! I've already pre-ordered O'Reilly's "Head First
Programming" (with Python)...I only like computer programming when
it's directly relevant to something I'm looking to do -- learning how
to do math stuff is boring to me, sad to say...but insofar as
JavaScript may be used to create "special effects" for a webpage, I'm
hooked! Yeah, I know that seems to cheapen JavaScript in many a
purist's eye but hey it's how I learn....