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

[lorlarz]

[...]
Crockford is good in his small limited area.  I learned from him andI
value that learning.  But the conceit of Crockford and disparaging
other books, when ' he writes just one that is outrageous limited and
incomplete makes me think he is an old foggie.

Another VK. *sigh*

Yes, indeed.  Please do not feed the troll.  Thanks in advance.

PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>

You know what a troll really is. It is a person who complains about
something with no specifics and says bad things without backing them
up at all, like laurent. Nobody knows what he is talking about and
what
he might be looking for. There is no evidence he is not just a lying
pretender.

I do not do that crap. I am saying I have seen NO evidence that
Crockford
makes JavaScript PROGRAMS and without that experience he lacks the
experience with major functions (relating to the DOM and CSS) and
very likely fails to KNOW the best principles here and many of the
"good parts" of JavaScript. He has the JSLint program, I know. But
what
JS programs for normal users with UIs and involving changes in the
UI has he made? LET'S SEE THEM. I DON'T MIND BEING WRONG.

Now, while it is impossible to know what would content laurent,
I would be happy to see some evidence of JS programs all in
Javascript
for regular people, using a UI in the browser.

Without such a demonstration, all will realize that IT IS LIKELY that
Crockford does NOT know all the "good parts" of JavaScript.

And, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
ANYBODY'S JAVASCRIPT PROGRAMS -- PLEASE!!!

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <8225ddf4-dc13-4c43-a89d-7b38db28f10d@j2
2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:39:11, lorlarz

And, finally (with respect to your material quoted below):
Javascript's MAIN use is for use in the web browsers (check your
history,
if you are unclear about this). The language was in NO WAY designed
to be
independent of the DOM, etc. ECMA standards NOTWITHSTANDING.

(A) Please do not paste text wrapped at a wider margin into Google; it
becomes tiresome to read. Either wrap your material narrower, or do not
wrap it before pasting.

(B) JavaScript is independent of the DOM; read ISO/IEC 16262, and you
will see that it is DOM-dependent. JavaScript is what the international
standard says, after allowing for any errata. What JavaScript was when
*first* written is not relevant here. History is past.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message

The algorithms in Knuth's famous books are written in a programming
language that won't run in any real computer. Are you complaining about
that as well ?

That suggests that you may have ready access to the books. If so, it
would be interesting to know what he has for the Date of Easter Sunday -
and what authority he gets his definition from!

My <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/estrdate.htm> ff. will, if
desired, indicate why.

Here's a thought. The Calendar Act of 1751, as passed, applies to
Britain and Colonies (excluding the AU/NZ area?). It was presumably
inherited by the US Republic in 1776. Constitutionally, the US can make
no law regarding an establishment of religion. Does that provision
annihilate the Act there, in which case they should be using the Julian
Calendar? Or does that provision render the Act immutable, except by
Constitutional Amendment?

This E-address is confidential, but ends up in Turnpike.

Regards,

 

[Bart Van der Donck]

Are these programs?:

http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/translateT.html
http://mynichecomputing.com/GuideInfoandPlanner/UniversalDD.htm
http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/HierMenuBuilder3.htm
http://mynichecomputing.com/digitallearning/yourOwn.htm
http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/

Yes, they are.  Programs a person can actually run in a browser
and show something and do something and that people can use.  

It must be great to live under such simple truths. Why are there 221
errors in your homepage then ? Trying to set an Olympic record ?
You should learn about basic markup first, like e.g. http://validator.w3.org.
Happy coding!

 

[Gregor Kofler]

lorlarz meinte:

You know what a troll really is.

Right. Lorlarz is. No wait you're perhaps too much of an idiot to
qualify as real troll. An idiot who can't read. Otherwise...

I do not do that crap. I am saying I have seen NO evidence that
Crockford
makes JavaScript PROGRAMS

....you would have noticed my list of useful programs by Crockford.

experience with major functions (relating to the DOM and CSS) and
very likely fails to KNOW the best principles here and many of the
"good parts" of JavaScript. He has the JSLint program, I know. But
what
JS programs for normal users with UIs and involving changes in the
UI has he made? LET'S SEE THEM. I DON'T MIND BEING WRONG.

IIRC there's even a video on YUI theater with him about the DOMs and
their peculiarities. But it's for programmers and therefore clearly not
suited for you.

And, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
ANYBODY'S JAVASCRIPT PROGRAMS -- PLEASE!!!

Now, that's easy. Even for you. Depending on your browser you'll have a
menu entry labeled "show page source". Activate it. Here you go... (or
perhaps not.)

On second thought I have to admit I was wrong: You are a troll - a
better one than VK ever was. Sorry for feeding you. Won't happen again.

 

[lorlarz]

lorlarz meinte:


Right. Lorlarz is. No wait you're perhaps too much of an idiot to
qualify as real troll. An idiot who can't read. Otherwise...


...you would have noticed my list of useful programs by Crockford.

I never saw any list of Crockford's JavaScript Programs (this is to
say:
applications). I have seen and enjoyed all his videos (though his
debilitating
conceit shows through there as well, and is almost certainly a
handicap for him,
even personally in his work).

IIRC there's even a video on YUI theater with him about the DOMs and
their peculiarities. But it's for programmers and therefore clearly not
suited for you.

Saw them all and understood them all. BUT, STILL: I have yet to see a
web app
on a web page by Crockford, other than the inert code cruncher, JSLint
--
something I do use, but do NOT pay attention to all matters relating
to style.

Now, that's easy. Even for you. Depending on your browser you'll have a
menu entry labeled "show page source". Activate it. Here you go... (or
perhaps not.)

Javascript snippets done by script kiddies do NOT constitute what I
(or anyone else) would call a program (or application). I gave
a definition of sorts of a JavaScript PROGRAM that most would
both understand and agree with a few posts back.

On second thought I have to admit I was wrong: You are a troll - a
better one than VK ever was. Sorry for feeding you. Won't happen again.

You can't help yourself. You have to defend irrationally.

 

[lorlarz]

It must be great to live under such simple truths. Why are there 221
errors in your homepage then ? Trying to set an Olympic record ?
You should learn about basic markup first, like e.g.http://validator.w3.org.
Happy coding!

Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and MS
or
of the guy I got the template of. I would never make that many
errors.

But, let's confine our discussion to JavaScript PROGRAMS
(applications),
if anyone knows what they are. I would love to see them and discuss
them.
Does this ever happen here or are just nerdy things all that goes on?

 

[lorlarz]

In comp.lang.javascript message <8225ddf4-dc13-4c43-a89d-7b38db28f10d@j2
2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:39:11, lorlarz
<[email protected]> posted:




(A) Please do not paste text wrapped at a wider margin into Google; it
becomes tiresome to read.  Either wrap your material narrower, or do not
wrap it before pasting.

(B) JavaScript is independent of the DOM; read ISO/IEC 16262, and you
will see that it is DOM-dependent.  JavaScript is what the international
standard says, after allowing for any errata.  What JavaScript was when
*first* written is not relevant here.  History is past.

--
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. [email protected]  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)

I do understand that JavaScript can be used independently of the DOM.

I personally am interested in JavaScript programs (applications) that
dynamically interact with DOMs, though. In short, the area
JavaScript was made for, yet still is rarely, rarely used to
its capacity in. Also, although JavaScript CAN be used
independently of the DOM, many of its functions are for DOM
manipulation; thus, to KNOW JavaScript is to also know these
functions. Otherwise perhaps you should say you are discussing
NERD's-creepy-limited-unexciting-bonehead javascript,
to make it clear you are not talking about all of the javascript
language.

By the way: Which line above is of the correct length?

 

[Bart Van der Donck]

Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and
MS or of the guy I got the template of.  

You're not even sure about that ? That's worse than making 221 errors.
You don't seem to bother to give much credibility to your statements,
right ?

I would never make that many errors.

Ah. Let's take one of your own pages then:
http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/ gives only 43 errors and 27
warnings indeed, besides crashing my Internet Explorer.

But, let's confine our discussion to JavaScript PROGRAMS
(applications), if anyone knows what they are.

Rest assured that many regulars in this group have written far more
code than you.

 

[lorlarz]

You're not even sure about that ? That's worse than making 221 errors.
You don't seem to bother to give much credibility to your statements,
right ?


Ah. Let's take one of your own pages then:http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/gives only 43 errors and 27
warnings indeed, besides crashing my Internet Explorer.


Rest assured that many regulars in this group have written far more
code than you.

Script Kiddies can write a lot of stupid simple code with ever
writing a useful or interesting JavaScript Application and
all that counts for NOTHING.


By the way, everyone can apparently get Crockford's
JavaScript: The Good Parts for FREE NOW. I just
checked it out and it works:

http://www.ebook3000.com/JavaScript--The-Good-Parts_20508.html
(download and then using 7-Zip to extract the rar and then
you unzip the zip and then finally extract the remaining large
rar)


Perhaps a lot more people can now decide if Crockford's
very accurate but very limited coverage is very usefual at all.

 

[lorlarz]

Script Kiddies can write a lot of stupid simple code with ever
writing a useful or interesting JavaScript Application and
all that counts for NOTHING.

OF COURSE, I meant "without ever" in the quoted material
three lines above. And, truer words were never spoken.

I might add that so much garbage is done, because that
CRAP is all "the man" will pay you for an many
do not have enough "balls" or grit to do anything
decent on your own without the cash.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

In comp.lang.javascript message


That suggests that you may have ready access to the books. If so, it
would be interesting to know what he has for the Date of Easter Sunday -
and what authority he gets his definition from!

Knuth, TAoCP, vol 1 (Fundamental Algorithms), 3rd ed, 1.3.2 ex 14 is
the Easter Sunday problem. The text begins:

The following algorithm, due to the Neapolitan astronomer
Aloysius Lilius and the German Jesuit mathematician
Christopher Clavius in the late 16th century, is used by
most Western churches to determine the date of Easter
Sunday for any year after 1582. (159)

Knuth then describes the algorithm, which is labeled "Algorithm E
(Date of Easter)".

So, as your site suggests, this is the Lilius / Clavius algorithm, and
Knuth doesn't appear to provide any more specific citation for it.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Without wishing to get embroiled in the above argument, can you indicate
why I might want to use JavaScript *not* in a browser (I mean for other
than say teaching purposes)?

Perhaps because it's a relatively clean, dynamic, fairly expressive
language with decent OO and functional features? It's well-documented
and widely used. It has desirable high-level constructs like decent
string manipulation. There are extensive libraries available for
various tasks.

Each of those claims has its challengers; there are those, for
example, who feel prototype-based OO simply isn't suitable for
large-scale development. But ECMAScript does enough well enough to be
worth considering. It isn't, say, OCaml, but it doesn't suffer from
OCaml's worst weaknesses, either.

Why might I use it for general purpose
scripting instead of, say, PHP?

Because PHP is a ghastly mess of features torn from other languages
and libraries mashed together without rhyme or reason? I know *I've*
written some fairly decent PHP code, and I'm sure plenty of other
people have to; but the language certainly doesn't encourage it.

That's not really the point, though. A better question is: in a
particular situation where ECMAScript is one option, how does it
measure up against other options? If you're writing backend scripts
for a site hosted by a provider who offers PHP but not server-side
ECMAScript, then PHP would be the reasonable choice. On the other
hand, if you're writing admin scripts to run under Windows Scripting
Host, I think JScript looks like a much nicer choice than VBScript.

And if I'm writing a widget to run under Konfabulator (the engine for
Yahoo! Widgets, which I happen to prefer over the competing
desktop-trinket environments), then I'd be using Javascript, because
that's pretty much my only choice. Of course, Konfabulator is in many
ways a browser-like environment (DOM, CSS, etc).

Another reason is that ECMAScript's popularity makes it a decent
choice for demonstrating code, particularly to non-experts. I gave a
presentation at this year's Computers & Writing conference where I
demonstrated some textual-analysis software; I wrote it in ECMAScript,
partly because I could show snippets and know that many people in the
audience had at least some familiarity with the language. Something
like OCaml would have been Greek to them. (Worse, actually, since many
were rhetoricians with some knowledge of Greek.)

 

[Michael Wojcik]

It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
(it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.

True, I simplified a bit. The C language includes the standard
library; however, only "hosted" implementations are required to
provide all of it. "Freestanding" implementations can leave most of it
out.

However, even for a freestanding implementation, the standard library
is still part of C; it's just an optional part.

Just the fact that you can replace the standard library probably
counts for something, anyway.

Well, technically, you can't. More specifically, defining any function
that's part of the standard library produces Undefined Behavior. Many
implementations go ahead and define the behavior in a way that does
let you replace the standard library; but that's an extension to the
language.

But the basic point stands - many languages specify their core
features, and let other standards (or proprietary inventions) define
higher-tier features. Just another case of modularization.

Another example might be network protocol stacks. TCP/IP is nicely
modularized; the IP standard says nothing about conversations
(provided by TCP) or even generalized datagrams (provided by UDP),
much less application protocols (Telnet, FTP, HTTP, etc). Those are
specified by higher-level standards. Contrast that with SNA, where
low-level stuff (like RH and RU definitions) are contaminated with all
sorts of special-purpose bits for high-level operations (like
authentication and routing).

If you want to learn how TCP works - really works, so you know how to
avoid things like Nagle / Delayed ACK interaction - you don't want to
start by learning about HTTP. And if you want to learn how ECMAScript
works, learning about the DOM isn't going to help.

I still have a project on the back burner to write an ecmascript
interpreter in Common Lisp. Probably not relevant either.

That could be fun. (I'd be inclined to use Scheme, as that's the LISP
variant I'm most conversant in, but maybe this sort of project would
be a good reason to learn CLOS.)

 

[lorlarz]

.

Peter

Peter, Please keep your communications with me on the newsgroup. No
email please.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <927e6344-a5a4-4cd2-9c76-a1e9c264e558@d7
7g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:59:06, lorlarz

Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and MS
or
of the guy I got the template of. I would never make that many
errors.

You are responsible for publishing them on the Web, however; and you are
responsible for choosing the tools you use and the sources that you
copy.

 

[lorlarz]

You're not even sure about that ? That's worse than making 221 errors.
You don't seem to bother to give much credibility to your statements,
right ?


Ah. Let's take one of your own pages then:http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/gives only 43 errors and 27
warnings indeed, besides crashing my Internet Explorer.


Rest assured that many regulars in this group have written far more
code than you.

Script Kiddies can write a lot of stupid simple code without ever
writing a useful or interesting JavaScript Application and
all that counts for NOTHING.

 

[lorlarz]

In comp.lang.javascript message <927e6344-a5a4-4cd2-9c76-a1e9c264e558@d7
7g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:59:06, lorlarz
<[email protected]> posted:




You are responsible for publishing them on the Web, however; and you are
responsible for choosing the tools you use and the sources that you
copy.

--
 (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike6.05.
 Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
 Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> :  about usage of News.
 No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail noNews.

Hey, the template was well-reviewed and so was Microsoft's ASP.NET
2.0 .
I will not take responsibility for all that, and do find the
situation
satisfactory. Everything works for everyone. I don't break anything
do I??
I don't ruin your relationship with your loved ones. Do I?
Seems ones "moral compass" is a bit of a joke -- YOURS!

 

[lorlarz]

Script Kiddies can write a lot of stupid simple code without ever
writing a useful or interesting JavaScript Application and
all that counts for NOTHING.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, _again_ I forgot to add:

The fact that so much garbage is done is because that
CRAP is all "the man" will pay you for an many
do not have enough "balls" or grit to do anything
decent on your own without the cash.

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

Some day when YOU, like me, start making actual full-blown Javascript
applications and stop being script kiddies, you will appreciate this point.
People: start making Javascript Applications!!

Full blown applications in Javascript?

Like a compiler and virtual machine?

Like a web-front to an online store? (Complete with full non-js fallback?)

Or perhaps the data editor, including an image map generator?

And that is just the stuff that runs in the browser.

I have an entire interactive parts catalogue lookup and cross reference
written in Javascript and that does NOT run in a web browser, though it does
use Microsoft's IE object as its GUI.