Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).

[lorlarz]

Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
world's
shortests books).

I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
_is_
smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
JavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like
how to play
with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
With what
Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_
javascript on the
web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).

Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully
implemented
and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
this is
an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all
about.

Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary
to
Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.

 

[lorlarz]

Crockford'sJavaScript,The Good Parts(a book review).
This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
world's
shortests books).

I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
_is_
smart and good).. But, how can he write a book onthe good partsofJavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It's like
how to play
with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
With what
Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually  _use_javascripton the
web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).

Is this a weakness?  Yes.  Damned right.  CSS may not be fully
implemented
and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
this is
an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** whatJavaScriptis all
about.

Fortunately, I have read about 20 goodJavaScriptbooks (and contrary
to
Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.

P.S. OTHER rather recent books I found plenty of reason to enjoy
(good examples make good books):

Pro JavaScript Design Patterns by Harmes & Dias (Apress,2008)
jQuery in Action by Bibeault & Kayz (Manning, 2008)
The Art and Science of JavaScript by Adams et al (Sitepoint, 2008)
JavaScript Phrasebook by Wenz (Sams, 2007)
Pro JavaScript Techniques by Resig (Apress, 2006)
Simply JavaScript by Yank and Adams (Sitepoint, 2007)
CSS, DHTML, & Ajax (4th ed.) by Teague (Peachpit, 2007)
JavaScript, the Definitive Guide (5th ed.) by Flanagan (O’Reilly,
2006) (I also read and worked through the earlier 4th ed., 2002)
The JavaScript Anthology 101 Essential Tips, … by Edwards and Adams
(Sitepoint, 2006)
JavaScript Bible (5th ed.) by Goodman and Morrison (Wiley, 2004) and
earlier editions.

If you don't like any of those books, you must be nuts. Good examples
make good books.

and an oldie I still do not regret having read:
JavaScript Application Cookbook by Bradenbaugh (O’Reilly, 1999) (an
oldie, great in its day; still helpful)

 

[Joost Diepenmaat]

Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
world's
shortests books).

I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
_is_
smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
JavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like
how to play
with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
With what
Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_
javascript on the
web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).

Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully
implemented
and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
this is
an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all
about.

Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
coders how to make effective use of the *language*.

The language itself does NOT include any CSS, DOM, BOM or whatever,
and there is at least one fairly popular implementation that doesn't
address CSS etc at all. See: actionscript.

Things are not as bad as back in the 90s, but in the whole DOM/CSS/BOM
bag there is still an unreasonably large lump of compatibility crap to
deal with, and putting all that into a book about "good coding
practices" would dilute the good bits probably to the point of making
them footnotes.

 

[lorlarz]

Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
coders how to make effective use of the *language*.

The language itself does NOT include any CSS, DOM, BOM or whatever,
and there is at least one fairly popular implementation that doesn't
address CSS etc at all. See: actionscript.

Things are not as bad as back in the 90s, but in the whole DOM/CSS/BOM
bag there is still an unreasonably large lump of compatibility crap to
deal with, and putting all that into a book about "good coding
practices" would dilute the good bits probably to the point of making
them footnotes.

Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript
functions
for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS
are
_javascript_ functions. AND, they are what allow much of the
communication
that is JavaScript in action. Examples:

GetElementById(string which is element id);
createElement(string which is element type);
[element to appendTo].appendChild(variable representing new element);
document.getElementById(elementName).value = variable or string;
document.getElementById(elementName)style.display = "none";
document.getElementById(elementName).innerHTML = "hi";

Without such stuff there is NO javascript program that actually does
anything
in the browsers. NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you
are
happy with alerts. Really. Get real.

 

[Joost Diepenmaat]

Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript
functions
for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS
are
_javascript_ functions.

[ blah blah blah ]

NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you
are
happy with alerts. Really. Get real.

I wasn't talking about browsers. Anyway, what makes you think alerts
are in the language?

regardless of the title of the book, it's about ecmascript:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm

 

[lorlarz]

Hey.  You really are being ridiculous.  The many many JavaScript
functions
for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS
are
_javascript_ functions.  

 [ blah blah blah ]

NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you
are
happy with alerts.  Really.  Get real.

I wasn't talking about browsers. Anyway, what makes you think alerts
are in the language?

regardless of the title of the book, it's about ecmascript:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm

Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book. It is about
a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small subset).
If you don't like reading books
that show realistic examples, you might be confused. But, Crockford is
way
less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way covers JavaScript.

If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.
If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
can put
Crockford's principles to good use
and learn much, much, much, much more of JavaScript and do
everything.

Good time to catch up
now before the new revision of ecmascript comes out.

 

[Joost Diepenmaat]

Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book.

I never claimed you did not.

It is about a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small
subset). If you don't like reading books that show realistic
examples, you might be confused.

Or maybe I just don't like browsers. Please learn the difference
between languages and libraries.

But, Crockford is way less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way
covers JavaScript.

So what if he doesn't cover all of the browser model? Flanagan makes
sweeping and incorrect claims about the language. Personally, I'd
think you need at least both. Until someone comes along to write a
complete and correct book.

If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.
If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
can put
Crockford's principles to good use
and learn much, much, much, much more of JavaScript and do
everything.

So we agree you'd need both, then.

Good time to catch up
now before the new revision of ecmascript comes out.

Good luck waiting for the MS implementation. Me, I need to get work
done today.

 

[RobG]

Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
world's
shortests books).

I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
_is_
smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
JavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It's like
how to play
with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.

[...]
Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
coders how to make effective use of the *language*.

I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been
called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the
same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript".

Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't
bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if
this book helps fix that, it can only do good.

As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges.
Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in
about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is
about 150 pages. Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the
negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like
his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors,
just style or content gripes).

 

[lorlarz]

Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
world's
shortests books).
I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
_is_
smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
JavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It's like
how to play
with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.

[...]
Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
coders how to make effective use of the *language*.

I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now.  I expect it should have been
called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the
same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript".  

Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't
bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if
this book helps fix that, it can only do good.

As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges.
Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in
about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is
about 150 pages.  Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the
negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like
his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors,
just style or content gripes).

Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period. So,
is Flanagan's
book. It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is
about something
else. IT IS NOT. Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable
because it
does not cover enough of the langauge to use it. Flanagan does (to
say the least).

Crockford does some things better. True. That is his only claim to
fame. After you
know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a
few aspects as
he covers a small subset. Otherwise your know is less than
incomplete. It is
inadequate and you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of
JavaScript
programmer. That is the truth.

Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes.
It is
not enough to do anything by itself. For any purpose for which
ECMAScript aka
JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*. Of course, those
ignorant of
JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
(and Crockford's)
YUI, but
you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
specifics of the
language and it will be a crutch.

 

[lorlarz]

Typo correction: Of course what I meant below (in my quoted remarks)
was
" ... ECMAScript *or* JavaScript programmer ..."

Let me add, the first line of Crockford's Preface to JavaScript, The
Good Parts,
reads:

"This is a book about the JavaScript programming language ... "

and then
he soon says:

"It is not exhaustive about the language and its quirks. It does not
contain
everything you/ll ever need to know"

(and this is one tremendous gross and extreme understatement !!!!!!!)

Flanagan's book is called: JavaScript, The Definitive Guide.

Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
world's
shortests books).
I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
_is_
smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
JavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It'slike
how to play
with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.. [...]
Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
coders how to make effective use of the *language*.

I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now.  I expect it should have been
called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the
same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript".  

Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't
bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if
this book helps fix that, it can only do good.

As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges.
Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in
about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is
about 150 pages.  Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the
negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like
his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors,
just style or content gripes).

- Show quoted text -

Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period.  So,
is Flanagan's
book.  It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is
about something
else.  IT IS NOT.   Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable
because it
does not cover enough of the langauge to use it.  Flanagan does (to
say the least).

Crockford does some things better.  True.  That is his only claim to
fame.  After you
know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a
few aspects as
he covers a small subset.  Otherwise your know is less than
incomplete.  It is
inadequate and you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of
JavaScript
programmer.  That is the truth.

Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes.
It is
not enough to do anything by itself.  For any purpose for which
ECMAScript aka
JavaScript is used.  Fact.  *There is no UI*.  Of course, those
ignorant of
JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
(and Crockford's)
YUI, but
you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
specifics of the
language and it will be a crutch.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Aaron Gray]

Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
world's
shortests books).

It was not as good a book as I was hoping for.

It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the grammer.
It missed out instanceof too.

Read it quickly then passed it on to a friend to read.

Pro Javascript Techniques was a bit crappy too, with things like 'self' used
but not explained. Inconsistent code in examples calling functions that were
not given.

Pro Javascript Design Patterns seems better, just started reading it.

Aaron

 

[lorlarz]

It was not as good a book as I was hoping for.

It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the grammer.
It missed out instanceof too.

Read it quickly then passed it on to a friend to read.

Pro Javascript Techniques was a bit crappy too, with things like 'self' used
but not explained. Inconsistent code in examples calling functions that were
not given.

Pro Javascript Design Patterns seems better, just started reading it.

Aaron

Aaron

The Pro JavaScript Design Patterns book is a better book. Much more
there on
how to do things right. Its coverage of the language, like
Crockford's , is partial
& minimal (because the book is not out to cover the language, but show
examples of
uses of design patterns with the JS language!). Unfortunately,
Crockford was not
as clear that it was really just that sort of thing *he* was doing
too!!; in fact,
he kind of pretends to be covering the "good parts of the language"
while he misses
at least half (or more) of any "good parts" necessary just to use the
language --
thus misses likely much more than half of what could be considered
"good".

From what I can tell Crockford is just a bit "off" (irrational and
pompous).
He decided in 2001 there was no other "good book" and he has never
changed
his mind (old foggy). And he apparently has missed MANY !!: Here's
some, each of
which would do any JavaScripter MORE good than his short limited book
(I guarantee it):

Professional Ajax (2nd ed.) by Zakas, McPeak, & Fawcett (Wrox, 2007)
Pro JavaScript Design Patterns by Harmes & Dias (Apress,2008)
jQuery in Action by Bibeault & Kayz (Manning, 2008)
The Art and Science of JavaScript by Adams et al (Sitepoint, 2008)
JavaScript Phrasebook by Wenz (Sams, 2007)
Pro JavaScript Techniques by Resig (Apress, 2006)
Simply JavaScript by Yank and Adams (Sitepoint, 2007)
CSS, DHTML, & Ajax (4th ed.) by Teague (Peachpit, 2007)
JavaScript, the Definitive Guide (5th ed.) by Flanagan (O’Reilly,
2006) (I also read and worked through the earlier 4th ed., 2002)
The JavaScript Anthology 101 Essential Tips, … by Edwards and Adams
(Sitepoint, 2006)
JavaScript Bible (5th ed.) by Goodman and Morrison (Wiley, 2004) and
earlier editions

 

[Peter Michaux]

Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period.

So he didn't drift off the topic he selected. Good for him and good
for his editor.

So, is Flanagan's book.

Flangan's book is not about JavaScript "period". Flanagan's book is
about JavaScript, browser scripting and some applications outside of
the browser.

It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is
about something else. IT IS NOT.

Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable
because it does not cover enough of the langauge to use it.

Crockford's book is not meant to be read by a beginner. He states that
somewhere. I wish there were more books like Crockford's where a
thoughtful JavaScript programmer has written down lessons learned and
some reasons why.

There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.

Flanagan does (to say the least).

There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.

Crockford does some things better. True.

Great. Would you rather he had not shared them?

That is his only claim to fame. After you
know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a
few aspects as he covers a small subset.

I believe that is exactly why he wrote the book. Again it seems like
he achieved his goal.

Otherwise your know is less than incomplete. It is inadequate and
you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of
JavaScript programmer. That is the truth.

You seem to have missed the point of his book and want to publicly
display that you have.

Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes.
It is not enough to do anything by itself.

It makes for a nice summary of his writing and videos on the web.

For any purpose for which
ECMAScript aka
JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*.

JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover
it then.

Of course, those ignorant of
JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
(and Crockford's) YUI,

There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't
see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.

but
you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
specifics of the
language and it will be a crutch.

The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information
about JavaScript.


I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read
even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own
practices.


What is your point anyway?

Peter

 

[dhtml]

[snip]

The Pro JavaScript Design Patterns book is a better book. Much more
there on
how to do things right.

You've provided no example of such 'right' programming, so we have no
way of assessing what you think is right or wrong.

From what I can tell Crockford is just a bit "off" (irrational and
pompous).

What does your personal judgment about Doug's personality have to do
with the book?

He decided in 2001 there was no other "good book" and he has never
changed
his mind (old foggy).

[snip]

The only thing that is 'foggy' is your understanding of what EcmaScript
is. You can potentially change this by reading the ECMA-262 manual,
online, for free. There's an HTML edition on bclary.com.

As Joost and Peter pointed out to you, the books you listed are mostly
related to browser scripting and JavaScript libraries. I see that your
book selection includes a book of how to use jQuery.


Garrett

 

[Gregor Kofler]

lorlarz meinte:

But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
JavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird.

Because it's about *JavaScript*. And he probably didn't want to write
zillions of pages dealing with all those browser peculiarities. And add
errata every other week. And still being "incomplete". And just doing a
rehash of all the ressources found on the web.

Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary
to
Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.

Interesting. I haven't read another book than Crockford's and still can
write decent JS manipulating the DOM.

However, Crockford had me convinced to get off all this
pseude-class-based JS style. And I'm pretty sure my JS is now shorter,
faster and more JS than before.

Gregor

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Aaron Gray meinte:

It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the
grammer.

As he says: He want's to concentrate on a small subset of JS. The Good
Parts. And leave out all the stuff he deems a burden and/or superfluous.
He also leaves out all String methods. Who cares? Read about them on any
readily available WWW ressource like mozilla.org.

Gregor

 

[Gregor Kofler]

lorlarz meinte:

[crap snipped]

Just stop reading books, which scope you can't or won't understand.
Resort to Resig's alternatives.

Gregor

 

[Gregor Kofler]

lorlarz meinte:

Could you post correctly. Puhleze.

Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book. It is about
a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small subset).

Cool. That's what I bought it for. To learn about the Good Parts of
Java/ECMAScript. I wasn't disappointed.

If you don't like reading books
that show realistic examples, you might be confused. But, Crockford is
way
less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way covers JavaScript.

He covers the Good Parts of it.

If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.

Crockford never claims to do that.

If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
can put
Crockford's principles to good use

See.

Gregor

 

[lorlarz]

[snip]

There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.

I agree. You must read several books, preferable loaded with working
examples. Nothing like that in Crockford, so what he offers is
something
else. Style advice and principles of good coding, and that is all.
Very little,
esp. since dealing with things that AFFECT the UI is a huge topic area
not
dealt with at all by him.

[snip]

JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover
it then.

Indeed JS has no UI of its own. What I meant of course is that
Crockford
covers NONE of the functions that interact with and change the visible
components
of the DOM (that which changes the UI for the user in response to
interaction, or
as time passes)

There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't
see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.

Leaving out coverage of good uses of functions that manipulate CSS and
DOM
is a huge incompleteness to any presentation of JavaScript. It is not
like
there are not better and worse ways to do things here. For example,
one
big issue is CSS vs DOM manipulation, which both can accomplish the
same thing.
How to do thing correctly with good combinations of DOM features and
CSS and
then using the related functions is a HUGE area where we need to
develop good
practice.

I am being to doubt tha Crockford ever deals with anything people see
in a
browser, this extreme larger oversight is so tremedous.

The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information
about JavaScript.

I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read
even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own
practices.

What is your point anyway?

My point is: Even as a book that is trying to present just some best
practices
and principles for doing things, this book does less than half a job.
The book, claiming to cover the 'good parts' of JavaScript is really
so misleading
in making that claim as to be fraudulent. Crockford claims he does
twice a job
than what he actually does (and probably much less). The DOM
manipulation vs
CSS issue and best practices and principles to use here would fill 300
pages
(being just the same sort of practices and principles subset book that
Crockford's
is).


Crockford's description of what he is offering is so inaccurate as to
be delusional.

By the way, I am no JS library lover. I do all raw and from scratch
in most of
my programs. SO I DO KNOW OF WHAT I SPEAK.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <468580d0-796d-46bb-b179-0cae2c710c8c@26
g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:47:56, lorlarz

I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's clearly not a necessary condition; it may not even be sufficient.

_is_
smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
JavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird.

Because JavaScript is independent of CSS and the browser DOM.

Those who want to use it only in other situations will not want to buy
irrelevant material. It can for example be used, in Windows, with WSH
CScript and WScript; for that, it is often better than the more
commonly-used VBscript which appeals only to the simple-minder herd that
find it comfortable to rely on Microsoft as much as they can.

Of course, a well-written similar-sized book on CSS, and one on each of
the commoner DOMs, would also be worth having available, for those in
need of such.