On Jun 10, 7:13 pm, Elizabeth Barnwell wrote:
>On Jun 10, 8:18 am, Henry wrote:
>>On Jun 9, 7:11 pm, Elizabeth Barnwell wrote:
This may be a useful tool to better understand & find Javascript
concepts:http://www.yoyobrain.com/subjects/show/240
>>>Add flashcards to your studies, click on cram with the learning
wizard.
>>>We're building this site to improve learning, so feedback on
improvements and how to get this into the hands of developers
is much appreciated. ...
<snip>
>>One of your flash card questions is "What are the 3 primitive
data types?". The answer is moot because javascript/ECMAScript
has 5 primitive data types. There is so much wrong with your
card's contents that correcting them would effectively involve
writing the lot from scratch. I would have to second Peter's
opinion; "If you want to have a credible site, you will need
a knowledgeable JavaScript programmer to write your answers".
>>However, is the 'flash card' idea useful/effective from the
outset? How many of the cards mention "concepts" (or come
close to usefully explaining them)? And how much understanding
can follow form just the accumulation of a set of discrete
facts (assuming they were factual to start with)?
<snip>
In regard to needing more experienced JavaScript programmers,
you hit the nail on the head. YoYoBrain.com could maybe
become a tool they
would want to use to make their own learning materials to be
shared with others- making an organized resource of information.
If you took all of the valuable information you give to others
in your posts on this discussion board, made it into learning
material on yoyobrain- this could be cool,
Cool for whom exactly? I can certainly see how a site that wants to be
something but cannot produce the content that would make it into that
thing might like the idea of someone else (who is capable) providing
that content.
and efficient -
There we have a fundamental disagreement. This strikes me as a
fundamentally poor approach towards learning to be a "knowledgeable
JavaScript programmer". It might be a viable approach towards passing
some sort of superficial formal test on the subject but it lacks to
the depth to promote understanding (or any potential to provide that
depth).
To illustrate; one of the 'flash cards' states:-
Question: "How do you hide a script from old browsers that don't know
JavaScript"
Answer (in part): "use the <!-- comment around the actual script ..."
- which is a factual assertion (disregarding many quibbles about the
precise wording (such as what does "that don't know JavaScript"
actually mean there?)). However, it lacks that explanation(s) that
would promote understanding. The (or an) explanation being that
browsers tend to disregard the contents of elements that they do not
recognise and so will tend to treat any text content they have as
content to be displayed to the user. And browser released prior to the
introduction of SCRIPT elements could have no understanding of those
elements and so would tend to display the script source code to the
user. This meant that browsers released before (approximately) mid
1996 had a problem with SCRIPT elements and this strategy was used to
address their problems. Browsers released after the introduction of
SCRIPT elements (and particularly after their formal inclusion in HTML
standards) have no excuse for not knowing how to sensibly handle their
contents (not showing the code to the user even if the browser cannot
process that code itself).
From this explanation comes the understanding that since the odds of
any script written in 2008 encountering a browser released prior to
mid 1996 are vanishingly small this "hiding form old browsers"
incantation is now redundant.
The existence of your 'flash card' implies that this, broadly factual,
assertion has significance, while an understanding of it show that
even if it is a fact it is no longer of any significance at all.
I think that's the idea we're going
for... let me know your thoughts.
The whole approach is inappropriate for the subject.
