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

[dhtml]

On 2008-10-09 20:55, dhtml 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?

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

 

[sasuke]

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

 

[dhtml]

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

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

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

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.

 

[Peter Michaux]

Without even asking?

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

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.

<snip>

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

Agreed.

Peter

 

[Peter Michaux]

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

 

[dhtml]

On Oct 7, 5:19 pm, "Richard Cornford" <[email protected]>
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

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <b134b728-4c77-4af5-bd1d-eda792d09a82@w1
g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:39:54, Peter Michaux

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 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.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

 

[dhtml]

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

 

[dhtml]

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?

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

 

[dhtml]

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.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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.

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

 

[dhtml]

In comp.lang.javascript message <b134b728-4c77-4af5-bd1d-eda792d09a82@w1
g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:39:54, Peter Michaux



To abbreviate 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.