By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,285 Members | 2,124 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,285 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript? (2008-10-08)

P: n/a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:

javascript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
ISBN:0-596-10199-6

The errata should be read along with the book.

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/jscript5/

Errata:

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/jscript5/errata/
--
Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers. The sendings of these
daily posts are proficiently hosted by http://www.pair.com.

Oct 7 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
38 Replies


P: n/a
FAQ server wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:

javascript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
ISBN:0-596-10199-6
s/Most/Some/

This regular not included, given the number of inaccuracies, misconceptions,
and plain errors in it.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Oct 7 '08 #2

P: n/a
FAQ server wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
----------------------------------------------------------

Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:
<snip>

This is completely the wrong tone to take for this section. For a very
long time no books were included in the section (though the section
existed and stated that no books were regarded as being good enough to
be endorsed). When David Flanagan's book was included it was because a
belief had been expressed that at least some book should be included and
that book was the only book that anyone (worth listening to) was willing
to propose (and that was just two individuals at the time).

The wording should reflect the fact that David Flanagan's book got
included by the skin of its teeth, against some opposition, on a
minority endorsement, and as the least bad alternative rather than
anything like "the best".

The original wording for the entry: "The only book currently endorsed by
c.l.j. regulars is: javascript: The Definitive Guide ... ", was an
acurte statemnt, even if it was a bit ambiguous about exactly how few
regulars were willing to endorese the book in practice.

(Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a good idea
as the group's name is all lower case.)

Richard.

Oct 8 '08 #3

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
FAQ server wrote:
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:

javascript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
ISBN:0-596-10199-6

s/Most/Some/

This regular not included, given the number of inaccuracies, misconceptions,
and plain errors in it.
I removed the text altogether. The book is still listed.

I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.

I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping by a nearby
book store.

Garrett
>
PointedEars
Oct 8 '08 #4

P: n/a
Richard Cornford wrote:
FAQ server wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
----------------------------------------------------------
(Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a good idea
as the group's name is all lower case.)
CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation. It could even very well go in an
abbr tag:

<abbr title="comp.lang.javascript">CLJ</abbr>

It's not like laser or radar or scuba. Those are acronyms that can be
pronounced and they've turned into simple words. I wouldn't probably
understand anyone if they tried to pronounce "clj". "

If written c.l.j, it would be ambiguous with comp.lang.java, if written
as "clj", it isn't correctly abbreviated as other things typically are
(FAQ, XML, LSD, WTF, et c) and it doesn't stand out as much.

And FAQ is all lowercase words, too.

Garrett
Richard.
Oct 8 '08 #5

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
It's not like laser or radar or scuba. Those are acronyms that can be
pronounced and they've turned into simple words. I wouldn't probably
understand anyone if they tried to pronounce "clj". "
All acronyms can be pronounced. That's what makes them acronyms :-)
</pedantic>
Oct 8 '08 #6

P: n/a
On Oct 8, 6:33 am, dhtml wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
>FAQ server wrote:
>>----------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
----------------------------------------------------------
>(Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a
good idea as the group's name is all lower case.)

CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation.
In what possible sense? If "CLJ" is intended as a label for the
comp.lang.javascirpt Usenet newsgroup "use" anything? If you mean
contributors to the group use CLJ to refer to the group then that is
only a tiny (if vociferous) minority and my judgment would be that
historically "c.l.j" has been the most commonly employed shorthand
when referring to the group (with "c.l.js" coming second).
It could even very well go in an
abbr tag:

<abbr title="comp.lang.javascript">CLJ</abbr>

It's not like laser or radar or scuba. Those are acronyms that can be
pronounced and they've turned into simple words. I wouldn't probably
understand anyone if they tried to pronounce "clj". "

If written c.l.j, it would be ambiguous with comp.lang.java,
Not any more likely to be confused with comp.lang.java than CLJ.
if written as "clj", it isn't correctly abbreviated as
other things typically are (FAQ, XML, LSD, WTF, et c)
and it doesn't stand out as much.
So don't do that.
And FAQ is all lowercase words, too.
That, very self-evidently, is not true.

Richard.
Oct 8 '08 #7

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
>FAQ server wrote:
>>----------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
----------------------------------------------------------

(Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a good idea
as the group's name is all lower case.)

CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation. It could even very well go in an
abbr tag:

<abbr title="comp.lang.javascript">CLJ</abbr>

It's not like laser or radar or scuba. Those are acronyms that can be
pronounced and they've turned into simple words. I wouldn't probably
understand anyone if they tried to pronounce "clj". "
No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name contained
those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.

YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym>.
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Oct 8 '08 #8

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name contained
those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.
YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym>.
PointedEars
It's not an acronym though.

Acronym = "word" made up of the initials components in a phrase or name
and can be used in a sentence in the same way as any regular word and
pronounced as a word. Examples: RAM, ROM, LASER, RADAR, BOGOF.

Initialism = a sequence of letters made up of the initials components in
a phrase or name but cannot be pronounced as a word. Instead, the
letters are read out one at a time. Examples: CPU, CIA, FBI, CLJ.

Both acronyms and initialisms are subsets of abreviations.

That's what the wikipedia link you posted say also.
Oct 8 '08 #9

P: n/a
Stevo wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name
contained
those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.
YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym>.
PointedEars

It's not an acronym though.

Acronym = "word" made up of the initials components in a phrase or name
and can be used in a sentence in the same way as any regular word and
pronounced as a word. Examples: RAM, ROM, LASER, RADAR, BOGOF.

Initialism = a sequence of letters made up of the initials components in
a phrase or name but cannot be pronounced as a word. Instead, the
letters are read out one at a time. Examples: CPU, CIA, FBI, CLJ.
Isn't an "initialism" supposed to have all upper case letters? I can't
think of other examples where this is not true. That page lists that too.

When reading a long string of text, CLJ stands out more than clj does.

Both acronyms and initialisms are subsets of abreviations.

That's what the wikipedia link you posted say also.
The wikipedia link lists some "initalisims" and they are all
capitalized, even when the text would not be.

# FAQ: ([fæk] or ef a cue) frequently asked questions
# DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid
# IRA (for individual retirement account)

There are a few cases of Wikipedia capitalizing the aforementioned, as
they refer to page titles within Wikipedia.
Garrett
Oct 8 '08 #10

P: n/a
Richard Cornford wrote:
On Oct 8, 6:33 am, dhtml wrote:
>Richard Cornford wrote:
>>FAQ server wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
----------------------------------------------------------
(Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a
good idea as the group's name is all lower case.)
CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation.

In what possible sense? If "CLJ" is intended as a label for the
comp.lang.javascirpt Usenet newsgroup "use" anything? If you mean
contributors to the group use CLJ to refer to the group then that is
only a tiny (if vociferous) minority and my judgment would be that
historically "c.l.j" has been the most commonly employed shorthand
when referring to the group (with "c.l.js" coming second).
I used "CLJ" so that it would stand out as initials, or an "intialism".

>if written as "clj", it isn't correctly abbreviated as
other things typically are (FAQ, XML, LSD, WTF, et c)
and it doesn't stand out as much.

So don't do that.
Don't use "clj"? Which form do this groups regulars prefer?
>And FAQ is all lowercase words, too.

That, very self-evidently, is not true.
When used as a title (and it usually is) FAQ would be "Frequently Asked
Questions." Otherwise, it can be correctly written as "frequently asked
questions."

Richard.
Oct 8 '08 #11

P: n/a
On Oct 8, 2:50*am, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
FAQ server wrote:
Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:
javascript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
ISBN:0-596-10199-6
s/Most/Some/
"Most" is sufficient, fortunately, to exclude Thomas Lahn.
I removed the text altogether. The book is still listed.
The text should be restored. It was fairly recently agreed to
represent the general view of the newsgroup, arrant pedants
dissenting. Alternatively, use "The book most believed to be best by
CLJ regulars is :" which does not require a majority. Of course, "CLJ
regulars" is wrong; there will be regular readers who do not, or
rarely, write to the group.

As it stands, the section purports to be a list of JavaScript books.
There must be thousands of them. I guess I've seen at least a dozen.
Something expressing "recommended" is necessary.

The present FAQ links imply that Crockford has printed EXACTLY the
same errors as Flanagan !!

The book titles need quotes, or italics, or ...

I would also recommend the Pocket Flanagan, since its size makes it
much more useable at the PC. Full Flanagan needs an armchair. The
O'reilly site implies that it is still available.

I would hope that Regular Expression Pocket Reference (O'Reilly) would
be recommendable, too - but I've not AFAIK seen it. See <http://
oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514273/index.html>.

In Section 3.2, 262 & 16262 should have their formal titles.

It is worth noting that Bart's process appears to be getting its daily
posts from the current FAQ version, rather than from January's.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
Mail: J.R.""""""""@physics.org or (better) via Home Page at
Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/>
FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ....|
Oct 8 '08 #12

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:50 am, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>FAQ server wrote:
>>>Most CLJ regulars believe the best book to be:
javascript: The Definitive Guide, 5th Edition By David Flanagan
ISBN:0-596-10199-6
s/Most/Some/

"Most" is sufficient, fortunately, to exclude Thomas Lahn.
>I removed the text altogether. The book is still listed.

The text should be restored. It was fairly recently agreed to
represent the general view of the newsgroup, arrant pedants
dissenting. Alternatively, use "The book most believed to be best by
CLJ regulars is :" which does not require a majority. Of course, "CLJ
regulars" is wrong; there will be regular readers who do not, or
rarely, write to the group.
Even the more vociferous of those who do write will never completely agree.
As it stands, the section purports to be a list of JavaScript books.
There must be thousands of them. I guess I've seen at least a dozen.
Something expressing "recommended" is necessary.
A heading qualifying the entire section might be appropriate:

Although there are many books on javascript, most of them contain an
inordinate amount of errors, misconceptions, and promote bad practices
through examples and explanations.

The following books have been recommended knowledgeable regulars of
CLJ:

* book 1
* ...

Thoughts?
The present FAQ links imply that Crockford has printed EXACTLY the
same errors as Flanagan !!
Fixed that - thanks!
The book titles need quotes, or italics, or ...
Yes they do.
I would also recommend the Pocket Flanagan, since its size makes it
much more useable at the PC. Full Flanagan needs an armchair. The
O'reilly site implies that it is still available.

I would hope that Regular Expression Pocket Reference (O'Reilly) would
be recommendable, too - but I've not AFAIK seen it. See <http://
oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514273/index.html>.

I've not read this book.
>
In Section 3.2, 262 & 16262 should have their formal titles.

It is worth noting that Bart's process appears to be getting its daily
posts from the current FAQ version, rather than from January's.
There's an XML file that the data comes from. I updated that. I updated
three processing files. Two of these are for news postings, the other is
for generating the index.html page for the FAQ.

(Without getting into server details)
Garrett
Oct 8 '08 #13

P: n/a
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 18:50:41, in comp.lang.javascript, dhtml wrote:

<snip>
>I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.
You need to add a quote from the Preface :
"This is not a book for beginners."

You could also usefully add that the book is an example of how to
convert javascript into a different language. (A worse language in my
opinion, but some people enjoy doing that sort of thing.)

>I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping by a nearby
book store.
"casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to the FAQ.

John
--
John Harris
Oct 8 '08 #14

P: n/a
John G Harris wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 18:50:41, in comp.lang.javascript, dhtml wrote:

<snip>
>I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.

You need to add a quote from the Preface :
"This is not a book for beginners."

You could also usefully add that the book is an example of how to
convert javascript into a different language. (A worse language in my
opinion, but some people enjoy doing that sort of thing.)

>I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping by a nearby
book store.

"casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to the FAQ.
Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which is very short.

Did you think it should be removed?

Reviews were more positive than negative:
-1 Aaron Gray, who wrote: "Pro JavaScript Design Patterns seems better".
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....d?dmode=source

+3 (Peter Michaux, Gregor Kofler and " martinrineh...@gmail.com")
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....3b45c783973cd9

I have not looked into Pro JavaScript Design Patterns. I am somewhat
familiar with the author's blog. I can't say I agree with a lot of what
he writes, the top "most popular tips":
http://www.dustindiaz.com/javascript-no-no/
(* don't use getElementById, * use the addEvent function, * toggling:-

function toggle() {
if (document.getElementById('example').style == 'none') {
..........................................style.di splay == "none";

that a reader pointed out incredulously.

Again, I haven't read his book, only quickly checked his blog. He seems
really arrogant towards very reasonable and polite criticism: "Your
comments (as one might call nitpicking) are completely irrelevant" -
what is up with that?

Garrett
John
Oct 8 '08 #15

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <gc*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
, Wed, 8 Oct 2008 01:19:34, Richard Cornford
<Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.ukposted:
>FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?
>The original wording for the entry: "The only book currently endorsed
by c.l.j. regulars is: javascript: The Definitive Guide ... ", was an
acurte statemnt, even if it was a bit ambiguous about exactly how few
regulars were willing to endorese the book in practice.
It was certainly not accurate, because I am a regular and I endorse
Flanagan's "JavaScript Pocket Reference", which is a book.

--
(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.
Oct 8 '08 #16

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <gc*************@news.t-online.com>,
Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:11:25, Stevo <no@mail.invalidposted:
>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name contained
those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.
YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym>.
PointedEars

It's not an acronym though.

Acronym = "word" made up of the initials components in a phrase or name
and can be used in a sentence in the same way as any regular word and
pronounced as a word. Examples: RAM, ROM, LASER, RADAR, BOGOF.

CLJ can readily be pronounced; it is like KLUDGE but with a shortened
vowel; therefore, Merriam-Webster could have "Pronunciation: \'klj\" if
it had the word. I'd not be at all surprised if it were a word in some
[South-]Eastern European language; they can pronounce the strangest
strings there. Google Translate has no Welsh!

Using c.l.j breaks the sentence too much.
Using clj makes one try to understand it as a normal word.
The string CLJ has the required properties.

--
(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.
Oct 8 '08 #17

P: n/a
On Oct 8, 5:00 pm, dhtml wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
>On Oct 8, 6:33 am, dhtml wrote:
<snip>
>>CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation.
>In what possible sense? If "CLJ" is intended as a label for
the comp.lang.javascirpt Usenet newsgroup "use" anything?
If you mean contributors to the group use CLJ to refer to
the group then that is only a tiny (if vociferous) minority
and my judgment would be that historically "c.l.j" has been
the most commonly employed shorthand when referring to the
group (with "c.l.js" coming second).

I used "CLJ"
So not "CLJ uses"?
so that it would stand out as initials, or an "intialism".
>>if written as "clj", it isn't correctly abbreviated as
other things typically are (FAQ, XML, LSD, WTF, et c)
and it doesn't stand out as much.
>So don't do that.

Don't use "clj"?
Yes, don't to that.
Which form do this groups regulars prefer?
I prefer the traditional c.l.j, it is clear enough in context and
nobody has proposed anything better.
>>And FAQ is all lowercase words, too.
>That, very self-evidently, is not true.

When used as a title (and it usually is) FAQ would be
"Frequently Asked Questions." Otherwise, it can be
correctly written as "frequently asked questions."
But you cannot "correctly" write Comp.Lang.Javascript and refer to
this group.

Richard.
Oct 9 '08 #18

P: n/a
On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
>dhtml wrote:
<snip>
>>I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.
Without even asking?

<snip>
>>I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping
by a nearby book store.
>"casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to
the FAQ.
Absolutely.
Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which
is very short.

Did you think it should be removed?
It should never have been added in the first place without some
discussion before hand.
Reviews were more positive than negative:
<snip>

Reviews are irrelevant to the question of whether some book is
suitable for inclusion. Some consideration should be given to the
context in which it is presented; as a proposed learning aid for
novices. Crockfords book, whatever else it may be, is not that.
I have not looked into Pro JavaScript Design Patterns.
<snip>

Until someone worth listening to proposes its inclusion in the FAQ
"Pro JavaScript Design Patterns" is an irrelevance.

Richard.
Oct 9 '08 #19

P: n/a
Richard Cornford wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
>>dhtml wrote:
<snip>
>>>I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.

Without even asking?

<snip>
>>>I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping
by a nearby book store.
"casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to
the FAQ.

Absolutely.
>Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which
is very short.

Did you think it should be removed?

It should never have been added in the first place without some
discussion before hand.
>Reviews were more positive than negative:
<snip>

Reviews are irrelevant to the question of whether some book is
suitable for inclusion. Some consideration should be given to the
context in which it is presented; as a proposed learning aid for
novices. Crockfords book, whatever else it may be, is not that.
Peter Michaux:

| On Aug 18, 5:11=A0am, MartinRineh...@gmail.com wrote:
| I have Flanagan, Resig and Crockford. At present I'm using Crockford
| almost exclusively. Should Crockford replace Flanagan in the
| JavaScript FAQ "What's the best book?"?
|
| I don't think so but it is good enough that it could be added.
| Crockford's book has some good ideas but Flanagan's book covers the
| whole language, browser scripting and the DOM.
| var contentstr="";
|
| Peter

I also felt it was worth including. Given the dearth of decent books on
the subject, it seemed to be a valuable recommendation. Someone looking
for a book and, not finding one, might decide to buy something else.

Having said that, I will remove the entry for "javascript: The Good
Parts." Until I get a stronger consensus, it will not be included.

Garrett
>
Richard.
Oct 9 '08 #20

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
>On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
>>John G Harris wrote:
dhtml wrote:
>
Peter Michaux:

| On Aug 18, 5:11=A0am, MartinRineh...@gmail.com wrote:
| I have Flanagan, Resig and Crockford. At present I'm using Crockford
| almost exclusively. Should Crockford replace Flanagan in the
| JavaScript FAQ "What's the best book?"?
|
| I don't think so but it is good enough that it could be added.
| Crockford's book has some good ideas but Flanagan's book covers the
| whole language, browser scripting and the DOM.
| var contentstr="";
|
| Peter
Correction:
Peter did not write:
var contentstr="";

(copy-paste error).

Garrett
Garrett
>>
Richard.
Oct 9 '08 #21

P: n/a
On 2008-10-09 20:55, dhtml wrote:
>>>>I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.

Without even asking?
Give him a break, he did just ask, and he did remove the reference after
reading your comment. Maintaining an FAQ for a group where there's
hardly ever a consensus about any topic at all can't be an easy job.
I also felt it was worth including. Given the dearth of decent books on
the subject, it seemed to be a valuable recommendation. Someone looking
for a book and, not finding one, might decide to buy something else.
I've read that book, and while I don't agree with everything he writes,
it was an interesting read, and very clearly written. IMHO many of his
suggestions on coding style or the use of certain language features make
sense. The book is targeted towards intermediate to advanced users of
JavaScript (javascript), who at that stage should be able to make up
their own minds about which advice to follow and which to ignore.

If you read it for what it is (ie, _not_ a tutorial, but a collection
of recommendations, opinions, critique and examples), it's quite
interesting. IMO, it would be a good idea to put it back on the FAQ book
list, with an appropriate disclaimer or warning.

There just aren't any perfect books about JavaScript, and if we keep
this up, soon there won't be any book recommendations left in the FAQ.
That would be a Bad Thing, because some people prefer to learn from
books, and without guidance, they'll pick up something like "JavaScript
in 7 days" or "Impress your friends with AJAX".

I suggest that we also list books without a 100% approval rate, *and*
include some sort of short commentary about its shortcomings, a few
lines should be enough.

As it is, the only two books listed are the Flanagan guides. I've read
the Definitive Guide (partly), and while it's not a bad book, he does
get some important things wrong (inheritance for example). I think
Crockford's book is on a much higher level, and if Flanagan stays, so
should Crockford. Actually, I think they should both stay, and should
each be accompanied by a short paragraph mentioning some of the
objections that were raised here.

As for that other book, "Pro JavaScript Design Patterns", I haven't read
it, but I've read the blog article Garrett linked to, and what Diaz
recommends is frankly horrible. If the book is anything like his blog,
that one should be avoided.
- Conrad
Oct 9 '08 #22

P: n/a
Conrad Lender wrote:
On 2008-10-09 20:55, dhtml wrote:

>I also felt it was worth including. Given the dearth of decent books on
the subject, it seemed to be a valuable recommendation. Someone looking
for a book and, not finding one, might decide to buy something else.

I've read that book, and while I don't agree with everything he writes,
it was an interesting read, and very clearly written. IMHO many of his
suggestions on coding style or the use of certain language features make
sense. The book is targeted towards intermediate to advanced users of
JavaScript (javascript), who at that stage should be able to make up
their own minds about which advice to follow and which to ignore.
Do you think "javascript: The Good Parts" should be included?

It's also my opinion that any book should be recommended or esteemed by
knowledgeable members of the group.

Richard thinks that the book is not suitable learning material for
novices. I disagree on that as basis for not including the book as well
as the validity of that statement itself.

Garrett
>
- Conrad
Oct 9 '08 #23

P: n/a
On 2008-10-10 01:42, dhtml wrote:
Conrad Lender wrote:
>I've read that book, and while I don't agree with everything he writes,
it was an interesting read, and very clearly written. IMHO many of his
suggestions on coding style or the use of certain language features make
sense. The book is targeted towards intermediate to advanced users of
JavaScript (javascript), who at that stage should be able to make up
their own minds about which advice to follow and which to ignore.

Do you think "javascript: The Good Parts" should be included?
I think it should. But that's my personal opinion, and if we're going by
consensus, this is just one vote in favor. If anybody can come up with a
better suggestion, that's fine with me, just as long as the book section
doesn't remain empty because we're too pedantic in our selection.
It's also my opinion that any book should be recommended or esteemed by
knowledgeable members of the group.

Richard thinks that the book is not suitable learning material for
novices. I disagree on that as basis for not including the book as well
as the validity of that statement itself.
It's probably not a good book for novices, but that's beside the point.
Nobody said that only beginner material should be listed in the book
section. The current headline is "What books cover javascript?", not
"Which should be my first javascript book."

Again, I think that books that did not manage to receive 100% approval
from the regulars can and should be included, provided that a suitable
disclaimer is added. Flanagan's still there, after all, and there's been
a number of discussions about the errors in that book here.
- Conrad
Oct 10 '08 #24

P: n/a
I would also like to recommend 'javascript: The good parts'.

IMO, having a good reference for beginners is kind of contradictory;
the better[technically correct] you trying making your reference, the
more it sways away from a 'beginner reference'. Anyways, as another
recommendation, 'Professional Javascript for Web Developers' maintains
a good balance between explaining it all and at the same time
remaining decent in its contents.

/sasuke
Oct 10 '08 #25

P: n/a
sasuke wrote:
I would also like to recommend 'javascript: The good parts'.

IMO, having a good reference for beginners is kind of contradictory;
the better[technically correct] you trying making your reference, the
more it sways away from a 'beginner reference'. Anyways, as another
recommendation, 'Professional Javascript for Web Developers' maintains
a good balance between explaining it all and at the same time
remaining decent in its contents.
I just received "The Good Parts" and read a little more. My favor of
adding it is growing weaker. The discussion about functions has some
serious flaws. There's bugs in the code and he advocates the practice of
augmenting built-ins.

The problems can be discussed here so that they can be corrected in the
second edition.

Garrett
/sasuke
Oct 10 '08 #26

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
Conrad Lender wrote:
>On 2008-10-09 20:55, dhtml wrote:
["javascript: The Good Parts" by Douglas Crockford]
The book is targeted towards intermediate to advanced users of
JavaScript (javascript), who at that stage should be able to make up
their own minds about which advice to follow and which to ignore.

Do you think "javascript: The Good Parts" should be included?
I have not read that book (or [needed to read] any book on this topic so
far, except the parts posted here, which were mostly bad ones), so I cannot
recommend in favor or against it.

In general, I think a book about the programming languages discussed here
should not be excluded from the FAQ listing just because beginners may not
be the book's only target audience. Obviously, this newsgroup also is not.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Oct 10 '08 #27

P: n/a
Re-post?

In comp.lang.javascript message <9a219060-0827-4102-9163-390596942b7b@e1
7g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:10:04, Richard Cornford
<Ri**************@googlemail.composted:
>On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
>>dhtml wrote:
<snip>
>>>I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.

Without even asking?
A failed FAQ maintainer should be very careful about criticising the
work of one who is actually _doing_ the job.
I'd not actually recommend Crockford without using it; but from what I
heard it might well be cited. But, on that basis, I suggest the three
books need brief descriptions along the lines of
Fairly reliable for learners and reference : Big Flanagan
Conveniently compact reference : Small Flanagan
Rigorous : Crockford

From the description at Amazon, I suspect Crockford might be frustrating
for those who wish to read code from the Web, since for that one also
needs to know the Bad Parts.

--
(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)
Oct 11 '08 #28

P: n/a
On Oct 9, 11:10 am, Richard Cornford <Richard.Cornf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
dhtml wrote:
<snip>
>I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.

Without even asking?
I don't remember something being added to the FAQ in recent years
without a detailed discussion first.

>I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping
by a nearby book store.
"casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to
the FAQ.

Absolutely.
Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which
is very short.
Did you think it should be removed?

It should never have been added in the first place without some
discussion before hand.
Agreed. The FAQ editor is not the FAQ author.

I do believe Crockford's book should be added to the FAQ with a
warning it is not for novice programmers. It should not be assumed
only novice programmers will be reading the FAQ.

I have not looked into Pro JavaScript Design Patterns.

<snip>

Until someone worth listening to proposes its inclusion in the FAQ
"Pro JavaScript Design Patterns" is an irrelevance.
Agreed.

Peter
Oct 12 '08 #29

P: n/a
On Oct 7, 5:19 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
The original wording for the entry: "The only book currently endorsed by
c.l.j. regulars is: javascript: The Definitive Guide ... ", was an
acurte statemnt, even if it was a bit ambiguous about exactly how few
regulars were willing to endorese the book in practice.
I believe the above wording is more appropriate tone given the
apparent sentiment of some regulars.
(Incidentally, using CLJ as a reference to the group is not a good idea
as the group's name is all lower case.)
I think c.l.js would be better for the FAQ use. I was scolded once
that c.l.j could be confused with the Java hierarchy and that is a
reasonable concern.

Peter
Oct 12 '08 #30

P: n/a
Peter Michaux wrote:
On Oct 7, 5:19 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:


The current wording is:
| Although many books have been reviewed, most are
| quite bad and cannot be recommended.

| The following list of books been approved by CLJ
| regulars after technical review.

So it went from "endorsed by c.l.j regulars" to "believed to be the best
by most" to just "approved by CLJ regulars."

Garrett
Peter

--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/ >
Oct 12 '08 #31

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <b134b728-4c77-4af5-bd1d-eda792d09a82@w1
g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:39:54, Peter Michaux
<pe**********@gmail.composted:
>On Oct 9, 11:10 am, Richard Cornford <Richard.Cornf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
dhtml wrote:
<snip>
I Added javascript: The Good Parts to that list.

Without even asking?

I don't remember something being added to the FAQ in recent years
without a detailed discussion first.
Yes : that was a major problem with it. Rather little progress was
made.

If a good FAQ maintainer believes something to be correct and
appropriate, he should put it in; that's better than not doing so. If
it is not optimum, then it can be improved after discussion has ceased
being useful. If he generally gets it about right, he will not be
deposed.

A maintainer needs to be more than a copier of agreed input; if that
were not so, there would be no need to choose a knowledgeable one.

To abbreviate news:comp.lang.javascript, I prefer CLJ. In our context,
there can be no confusion with Java groups. If lower case is used, clj
is bad because it looks like an escaped bit of Slovenian; and c.l.j is
bad because the abbreviation j needs to be followed by a dot; on other
words, c.l.j. should then be used.

OT: Those who read code from green-bordered white boxes on my site
should be aware that some browsers (e.g. MSIE) display it as written,
whereas others (e.g. Firefox) change the layout and omit comment (and?).
To see the original : if it is also shown in my js-nclds.htm then read
the corresponding include file, else view source.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME
Prof Timo Salmi's Usenet Q&A <URL:ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqn.zip>
TS FAQs via : http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/ : tsfaq.html quote margin &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Oct 12 '08 #32

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
>"Richard Cornford" wrote:

The current wording is:
| Although many books have been reviewed, most are
| quite bad and cannot be recommended.

| The following list of books been approved by CLJ
| regulars after technical review.

So it went from "endorsed by c.l.j regulars" to "believed to be the best
by most" to just "approved by CLJ regulars."
It is still wrong.
PointedEars
Oct 12 '08 #33

P: n/a
Peter Michaux wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:10 am, Richard Cornford <Richard.Cornf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
>>John G Harris wrote:
dhtml wrote:
I do believe Crockford's book should be added to the FAQ with a
warning it is not for novice programmers. It should not be assumed
only novice programmers will be reading the FAQ.
It would be more helpful if you would provide a critical review
detailing the book's organization, strong and weak points (and why they
are so). Feel free to include technical misgivings and comparisons to
other books (Flanagan).

You might want to start another thread on that. That way, if "The Good
Parts" gets included, I can add a link to that review thread.

Garrett
Peter

--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/ >
Oct 12 '08 #34

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
dhtml wrote:
>Peter Michaux wrote:
>>"Richard Cornford" wrote:
The current wording is:
| Although many books have been reviewed, most are
| quite bad and cannot be recommended.

| The following list of books been approved by CLJ
| regulars after technical review.

So it went from "endorsed by c.l.j regulars" to "believed to be the best
by most" to just "approved by CLJ regulars."

It is still wrong.
I am aware that there are CLJ regulars who approve the book. They may
not be onerously obstreperous, but they exist. How is the text wrong?

>
PointedEars

--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/ >
Oct 12 '08 #35

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>dhtml wrote:
>>Peter Michaux wrote:
"Richard Cornford" wrote:
The current wording is:
| Although many books have been reviewed, most are
| quite bad and cannot be recommended.

| The following list of books been approved by CLJ
| regulars after technical review.

So it went from "endorsed by c.l.j regulars" to "believed to be the best
by most" to just "approved by CLJ regulars."
It is still wrong.

I am aware that there are CLJ regulars who approve the book. They may
not be onerously obstreperous, but they exist. How is the text wrong?
It says that the *list* had been "approved by CLJ regulars", which is quite
a different thing, and wrong, since you never even made so much as a single
strawpoll about it here.

But even if you were not referring to the list of books but the book that
you apparently have in mind here, it would still be wrong because not all
regulars of CLJ (if that group of people can ever be agreed on) approved the
book. And any other group of people, including the merely two
maybe-regulars (given their rather few postings here) that had approved it,
*iff* that, obviously *without sufficient, and one with arguably fallacious
reason*, does not mean anything. It is incorrect and ultimately misleading
for the reader to state anything else in the FAQ.

Stop quoting signatures.
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Oct 12 '08 #36

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
dhtml wrote:
>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>dhtml wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
"Richard Cornford" wrote:
The current wording is:
| Although many books have been reviewed, most are
| quite bad and cannot be recommended.

| The following list of books been approved by CLJ
| regulars after technical review.

So it went from "endorsed by c.l.j regulars" to "believed to be the best
by most" to just "approved by CLJ regulars."
It is still wrong.
I am aware that there are CLJ regulars who approve the book. They may
not be onerously obstreperous, but they exist. How is the text wrong?

It says that the *list* had been "approved by CLJ regulars", which is quite
a different thing, and wrong, since you never even made so much as a single
strawpoll about it here.

But even if you were not referring to the list of books but the book that
you apparently have in mind here, it would still be wrong because not all
regulars of CLJ (if that group of people can ever be agreed on) approved the
book. And any other group of people, including the merely two
maybe-regulars (given their rather few postings here) that had approved it,
*iff* that, obviously *without sufficient, and one with arguably fallacious
reason*, does not mean anything. It is incorrect and ultimately misleading
for the reader to state anything else in the FAQ.
You are arguing that "not all CLJ regulars approved the book." But that
is not what I wrote.

Did anyone else get that impression?

All the books in the list (all two of them) have been approved.

It would be more useful to have an actual book review than a "show of
hands" type of thing. The Flanagan book got a lot of discussion here and
was approved by regular and knowledgeable posters.
Stop quoting signatures.
I quoted your name. You didn't use a signature.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/ >
Oct 12 '08 #37

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>dhtml wrote:
>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
dhtml wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
>"Richard Cornford" wrote:
The current wording is:
| Although many books have been reviewed, most are
| quite bad and cannot be recommended.
>
| The following list of books been approved by CLJ
| regulars after technical review.
>
So it went from "endorsed by c.l.j regulars" to "believed to be the best
by most" to just "approved by CLJ regulars."
It is still wrong.
I am aware that there are CLJ regulars who approve the book. They may
not be onerously obstreperous, but they exist. How is the text wrong?
It says that the *list* had been "approved by CLJ regulars", which is quite
a different thing, and wrong, since you never even made so much as a single
strawpoll about it here.

But even if you were not referring to the list of books but the book that
you apparently have in mind here, it would still be wrong because not all
regulars of CLJ (if that group of people can ever be agreed on) approved the
book. And any other group of people, including the merely two
maybe-regulars (given their rather few postings here) that had approved it,
*iff* that, obviously *without sufficient, and one with arguably fallacious
reason*, does not mean anything. It is incorrect and ultimately misleading
for the reader to state anything else in the FAQ.

You are arguing that "not all CLJ regulars approved the book."
I did not. Read again. (Full quote intended.)
But that is not what I wrote.

Did anyone else get that impression?

All the books in the list (all two of them) have been approved.
The important question is: Approved by whom? Currently, it is a minority of
subscribers, and even of regulars. That does not mean anything and is
certainly not sufficient as "approval by CLJ regulars", but the wording
gives the false impression that the situation was different. It should be
changed.
It would be more useful to have an actual book review than a "show of
hands" type of thing. The Flanagan book got a lot of discussion here and
was approved by regular and knowledgeable posters.
Quite the contrary, as you could have known, had you read any more recent
discussion about it.
>Stop quoting signatures.

I quoted your name. You didn't use a signature.
"Signature" has double meaning. Anyhow, stop quoting the name on the bottom
of postings (and anything else that you are not referring to), then. TIA.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Oct 13 '08 #38

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In comp.lang.javascript message <b134b728-4c77-4af5-bd1d-eda792d09a82@w1
g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:39:54, Peter Michaux
<pe**********@gmail.composted:
>On Oct 9, 11:10 am, Richard Cornford <Richard.Cornf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>>On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:

John G Harris wrote:
dhtml wrote:
>
To abbreviate news:comp.lang.javascript, I prefer CLJ. In our context,
there can be no confusion with Java groups. If lower case is used, clj
is bad because it looks like an escaped bit of Slovenian; and c.l.j is
bad because the abbreviation j needs to be followed by a dot; on other
words, c.l.j. should then be used.

Although I agree with this, I find that more common use is "c.l.js". So
I did change to that.

It went from "clj" to "CLJ" to the current "c.l.js". I don't anticipate
this will be confusing.

--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/ >
Oct 25 '08 #39

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.