JavaScript Book Recommendations?

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:07:24 +0000, Tim Streater

[snip]

Good analogy. It's why I've been pushing that you get a book or two, I
wasn't just teasing (well, not much anyway

Blame my poor upbringing. I believe that it is not enough to buy
a book or two, but that they have to be the right books. <G>

My observation about there being many beginner books but much
fewer for the next step is, as far as I can see, correct. I would so
much like it to be wrong. That would make bookhunting much easier.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Evertjan.]

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 02 jan 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

On 01 Jan 2012 13:11:34 GMT, "Evertjan."

[snip]

Happy New Year, Gene,

And you.

Yes I am simply assuming it is obviously incorrect, based on the total
of the information you gave. [including slang wording.] Requiring me
to incalculate information that you did not give or requiring me not
to respond, because you possibly did not give such, is incorrect.

If you are going to claim that something is obviously incorrect,
I do not think that it is at all out of line for me to require that
you actually know what you are talking about. You admit that you did
not know a term that I used, yet you still made your statement.

I am remarking on the information you provided, guessing for the slang
word you used. Do not use slang words in an international group.

Do you really not see anything wrong with your behaviour?

Do not presume upon being better qualified here if some local variation
of English is your prime or monoglot language.

That is true. It is also true that I can consider someone to be
a troll, and that person actually is one.

You can consider what you seem fit,
but don't put that as a fact using "is".

Shall we return to the beauty of programming [in javascript]?

No answer here?

To make a nasty remark about something, especially when it is
uncalled for.

Again the mistake that the response can be limited by the wishes of the
original posting. Nasty responses are to be avoided, independent of
whether called for or not. Nasty however in the eyes of the reader, could
be different from the pen of the writer.

Defining someone as a troll is nasty in itself, tendency for nastyness is
in all of us.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 02 jan 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

On 01 Jan 2012 13:11:34 GMT, "Evertjan."

[snip]

Happy New Year, Gene,

And you.

Yes I am simply assuming it is obviously incorrect, based on the total
of the information you gave. [including slang wording.] Requiring me
to incalculate information that you did not give or requiring me not
to respond, because you possibly did not give such, is incorrect.

If you are going to claim that something is obviously incorrect,
I do not think that it is at all out of line for me to require that
you actually know what you are talking about. You admit that you did
not know a term that I used, yet you still made your statement.

I am remarking on the information you provided, guessing for the slang
word you used. Do not use slang words in an international group.

You guess, and then call your conclusion obvious. That is an
error in logic.

Do not presume upon being better qualified here if some local variation
of English is your prime or monoglot language.

Immaterial. You do not know what something meant, and you still
claimed your conclusion was obvious.

You can consider what you seem fit,
but don't put that as a fact using "is".

I do not, but I can use the verb in connection with qualifiers.

Shall we return to the beauty of programming [in javascript]?

No answer here?

I thought it was obvious. Yes, of course.

Again the mistake that the response can be limited by the wishes of the
original posting. Nasty responses are to be avoided, independent of
whether called for or not. Nasty however in the eyes of the reader, could
be different from the pen of the writer.

If it is called for, then it hardly need be avoided.

People have also excused murders. That someone else has a
different point of view does not mean that I can not state mine.

Defining someone as a troll is nasty in itself, tendency for nastyness is
in all of us.

No, it is not. Calling something what it is or can be reasonably
assumed to be is not nasty in and of itself.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
rlyn.invalid>, Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:01:24, Dr J R Stockton

In comp.lang.javascript message <665sf7hv1a1r8dg54e9fm7tq1t0j17rudk@4ax.



As you insist on using IE9, what you really want is a good book on
JScript. The reference section of our Public Library has a thick white
book on JScript; it is called "JavaScript" on the spine -- I did not
read the front or the name(s) of the author(s) or the publisher. I
don't know whether the JavaScript part is good; but the JScript-only
part has been very useful for seakfyle.js.

Almost certainly 9780672315473. Amazon.ca lists it, at prices from
$0.01 up (+ shipping). Reviews (from US, CA, UK) vary.

But if toy want a book you can believe every word of, you'll have to
write it yourself.

"toy" -> "you".

 

[Evertjan.]

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 03 jan 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 02 jan 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

On 01 Jan 2012 13:11:34 GMT, "Evertjan."

[snip]

Happy New Year, Gene,

And you.

Yes I am simply assuming it is obviously incorrect, based on the
total of the information you gave. [including slang wording.]
Requiring me to incalculate information that you did not give or
requiring me not to respond, because you possibly did not give such,
is incorrect.

If you are going to claim that something is obviously
incorrect,
I do not think that it is at all out of line for me to require that
you actually know what you are talking about. You admit that you
did not know a term that I used, yet you still made your statement.

I am remarking on the information you provided, guessing for the slang
word you used. Do not use slang words in an international group.

You guess, and then call your conclusion obvious. That is an
error in logic.

No it is not. Interpreting what someone means from what he writes is
always a guess. My guess about what you ment by that slang word was an
educated guess, aided by context and your conclusion. and it proved to be
a right guess.

Your interpretation of what I mean by "obvious" for instance is also a
guess, and your dictionary does not prove, or is not proof of what I
ment.

That is the difference between a computer language and human language,
in computer language, the definition is mostly also true in the
aplication, and extensive testing on a platform will suffice.

Immaterial. You do not know what something meant, and you still
claimed your conclusion was obvious.

I ment "has".

I do not, but I can use the verb in connection with qualifiers.

So you do not consider what you seem fit?
Yes, you can.

Shall we return to the beauty of programming [in javascript]?

No answer here?

I thought it was obvious. Yes, of course.

Fine. programming is, sorry I mean should be, an art.

If it is called for, then it hardly need be avoided.

Subjective reasoning, my dear Watson.

People have also excused murders. That someone else has a
different point of view does not mean that I can not state mine.

Yes, but I contest your statement, as you did not ask if I agreed,
but if I kwew about the existence of examples of facts [trolls and
specific nasty responses].

No, it is not.

Is there no tendency for nastyness in all of us?

Calling something what it is or can be reasonably
assumed to be is not nasty in and of itself.

"nasty of itself" meaning "nasty by itself"?

Again you state something very subjective as a fact,
"reasonably assumed" being just a surrogate of a fact,
and excusing yourself. That people do that, like excusing murders,
does not defing that not to be nasty.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On 03 Jan 2012 11:17:28 GMT, "Evertjan."

[snip]

You win. It does not seem to matter that I observed the
situation, and you did not. What exactly did you win though?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <timstreater-B1ECC6.17143901012012@news.
individual.net>, Sun, 1 Jan 2012 17:14:39, Tim Streater

I haven't looked there but my guess would be that, like all specs, they
are formally correct but lack readability and have few examples.

The ECMA spec has at least four considerable advantages over books such
as Goodman and Flanagan, and even pocket Flanagan.

It is available in bits - zeroes and ones - at no cost.
It loads onto any reasonable computer.
It is virtually massless.
It is machine-searchable.

Consider an experienced Pascal programmer, at the Gene stage of
JavaScript, whose next bit of code calls for a repeat-until loop in his
Pascal mind. He can heave his book off the shelf, consult the index,
find no mention of "repeat", wonder if it is indexed in a more general
manner, etc.

Or he can have his PDF of ECMA 262 open, scan for the word "repeat", and
find just two instances of it; clearly each is an "English" rather than
"JavaScript" word. Likewise "loop". So there's no repeat-until loop as
such.

But he knows that the Contents List of such a standard will be fairly
reliable - looking down it, he sees the first (and last) interesting
section at "12 Statement", the relevant sub-section at "12.6 Iteration
Statements", and in that sub-sub-sectione 12.6.1 to 12.6.4, with 12.6.1
looking likely.

12.6.1 starts "The production do Statement while ( Expression ); is
evaluated as follows:", which is probably all that need be said; and,
while the details are not all immediately clear, he should easily see
that there is always at least one iteration, and that 'continue' and
'break', whatever they may be, can be used.

If that's not enough, he at least knows what to look for in a book, or
what to try in a test file.

 

[Tim Streater]

In comp.lang.javascript message <timstreater-B1ECC6.17143901012012@news.
individual.net>, Sun, 1 Jan 2012 17:14:39, Tim Streater


The ECMA spec has at least four considerable advantages over books such
as Goodman and Flanagan, and even pocket Flanagan.

It is available in bits - zeroes and ones - at no cost.
It loads onto any reasonable computer.
It is virtually massless.
It is machine-searchable.

Consider an experienced Pascal programmer, at the Gene stage of
JavaScript, whose next bit of code calls for a repeat-until loop in his
Pascal mind. He can heave his book off the shelf, consult the index,
find no mention of "repeat", wonder if it is indexed in a more general
manner, etc.

Or he can have his PDF of ECMA 262 open, scan for the word "repeat", and
find just two instances of it; clearly each is an "English" rather than
"JavaScript" word. Likewise "loop". So there's no repeat-until loop as
such.

Or he can look up "loops" in the index of his JS Bible and find a dozen
references. Or look for "control structures" in the Contents and find
the appropriate chapter - and then read it through. I don't buy this:
"Oh dear, no reference to the word 'repeat' so I'm stuck!" business, or
<innocent look> were you trying to tell us something about Pascal
programmers?

Having a good index, BTW, is one criterion I'd apply to all technical
book purchases.

 

[Mel Smith]

Tim said:

Or he can look up "loops" in the index of his JS Bible and find a dozen
references. Or look for "control structures" in the Contents and find the
appropriate chapter - and then read it through. I don't buy this: "Oh
dear, no reference to the word 'repeat' so I'm stuck!" business, or
<innocent look> were you trying to tell us something about Pascal
programmers?

Having a good index, BTW, is one criterion I'd apply to all technical book
purchases.

Hi:

Tim is right. I have a complete .pdf copy of the 'Bible' on the CD-ROM
also, and it is easily searchable. Many reference files on the CD too.

But, it is still nice to have this 'dictionary-size' book weighing down
on my legs as I work my way slowly thru it in the evening..

Lots of good stuff here, but I now realize that I can't recommend the
book just because *I* like it. My background, experience, and abilities
are so much different than most people here that any recommendation that I
make would be questionable at any level.

btw, Background: M.Sc in Computing Science - 1973, University of
Alberta. Experience: extensive business programming in a variety of
languages since then, most recently ten years with Harbour (a high level
database language that compiles into C). Abilities: a pretty good business
programmer, but no abilities at lower levels of programming (i.e., no C or
Assembler). Javascript: I've used it at a superficial level for approx a
year or so, but I really don't know much about what I'm doing yet. I'm still
dangerous

So, I'll continue with my studying with my head down for a few weeks.

-Mel

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:32:44 +0000, Tim Streater

[snip]

Having a good index, BTW, is one criterion I'd apply to all technical
book purchases.

Quite, to the point where a technical book not having an index
means I almost certainly will not buy it.

A good table of contents is something I look for, too.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[M. Strobel]

Am 30.12.2011 20:49, schrieb Gene Wirchenko:

Dear JavaScripters:

Does anyone have any recommendations for a good book on
JavaScript? (If anyone is going to suggest reading the FAQ, let me
say that you should read it first before hitting "Send".)

In another thread, Tim Streater mentioned "JavaScript Bible 7th
Edition". What do you think of it?
....
I am looking for a book that gets into the fine points. There
are all too many books and Webpages that deal with the beginning
stuff, but I need to get into the fine points. I want my pages to be
professional and not subject to errors because some mistake that I
could have avoided if only I knew.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

I have got the JavaScript Bible 6th edition since 2008. I think
it is very complete, no problem to get into the fine points.

It is absolutely huge, set with a small font (means a lot of text).

My version is a little outdated on browser subjects.

In my opinion it is overly complete, you have hardly a chance to
work through it all. But the structure and index seem good and
logical to me.

I have seen higher prices on books, just buy it if you need
javascript.

Disclaimer: Javascript is only one of many assets for me.

/Str.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Am 30.12.2011 20:49, schrieb Gene Wirchenko:

I have got the JavaScript Bible 6th edition since 2008. I think
it is very complete, no problem to get into the fine points.

Unless it contains errors.

It is absolutely huge, set with a small font (means a lot of text).

My version is a little outdated on browser subjects.

In my opinion it is overly complete, you have hardly a chance to
work through it all. But the structure and index seem good and
logical to me.

While you can learn some things from Goodman's 6th ed., there will still be
a lot of things – I daresay more – that you have to unlearn after you read
that book (for example, using parseInt() without second argument). The main
problem is that the book is quantity over quality and more about the DOM
(with still a lot of awful examples that were even outdated back in 2007,
when it was published) than about the programming language. IOW, target
missed.

The book is good for Brendan Eich's foreword and the first two background
chapters. The third chapter, "Your First JavaScript Script" already has a
erroneous example, one with an invalid HTML document that uses
`window.onload' over `<body onload="…">' even though the author has full
control over the document. It goes on with using document.getElementById(…)
in a chain (which is tolerable) and `innerHTML' (which is not) that is
assigned code so that the resulting `script' element is liable to end
prematurely (ETAGO delimiters not escaped), rendering the HTML document
invalid in any case.

It is good that he says "<script> tag", which is correct, but why is there
no proper explanation of _elements_ in that chapter (no, the `div' element
has the attribute, not the "<div> tag")? After all, he is calling
document.get*Element*ById().

And then he continues with explaining the `navigator' object (for later
browser sniffing – ouch!).

Not that any of this really has to do with the programming language that the
book should be about. And what it is really about is ripe with problems
like that.

I have seen higher prices on books, just buy it if you need
javascript.

A waste of money regardless. (There is
<http://books.google.ch/books?id=W3eytUUwhEIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0>
with many preview pages. If you must read it complete, go to a public
library instead.)

Disclaimer: Javascript is only one of many assets for me.

There is no "Javascript", and Goodman's distributing the common
misconception that *current* JScript was only another name for JavaScript
does not help either.

IMO, the best way to become professional about this is RTFM (and I really
mean the *manual*, i. e. language specifications and references), and
posting *relevant* *parts* of your code for public review as explained in
<http://jibbering.com/faq/#posting>.


PointedEars

 

[M. Strobel]

Am 06.01.2012 03:16, schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

IMO, the best way to become professional about this is RTFM (and I really
mean the *manual*, i. e. language specifications and references), and
posting *relevant* *parts* of your code for public review as explained in
<http://jibbering.com/faq/#posting>.


PointedEars

We do RTFM all the time. But FMs are not made for teaching, they
are for reference.

Best is a teacher (a real one, in flesh), next best is a good
book. Discussion in a forum/newsgroup is IMO something you do in
any case, and it is only for minor questions.

/Str.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Am 06.01.2012 03:16, schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

We do RTFM all the time. But FMs are not made for teaching, they
are for reference.

NAK. With proper discipline, you can learn a lot when learning from a good
manual combined with good discussions. BTDT. The Netscape JavaScript
Guides and References (nowadays MDN), after being corrected in discussions,
and the ECMAScript Language Implementation, after being explained in
discussions, have been excellent teachers to me.

Best is a teacher (a real one, in flesh), next best is a good book.

But there is no good book.

Discussion in a forum/newsgroup is IMO something you do in
any case, and it is only for minor questions.

NAK. You cannot have been reading here (or elsewhere) long, for the record
shows that the most minor questions often cause the longest and most
interesting discussions on much more than the subject of the original
question.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Am 06.01.2012 03:16, schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

We do RTFM all the time. But FMs are not made for teaching, they
are for reference.

NAK. With proper discipline, you can learn a lot when learning from a good
manual combined with good discussions. BTDT. The Netscape JavaScript
Guides and References (nowadays MDN), after being corrected in discussions,
and the ECMAScript Language Specification, after being explained in
discussions, have been excellent teachers to me.

Best is a teacher (a real one, in flesh), next best is a good book.

But there is no good book.

Discussion in a forum/newsgroup is IMO something you do in
any case, and it is only for minor questions.

NAK. You cannot have been reading here (or elsewhere) long, for the record
shows that the most minor questions often cause the longest and most
interesting discussions on much more than the subject of the original
question.


PointedEars

 

[M. Strobel]

Am 06.01.2012 21:04, schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

M. Strobel wrote: --cut

But there is no good book. --cut


PointedEars

Ohh. You completely missed something good.

/Str.

 

[Arno Welzel]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, 2012-01-06 21:04:

M. Strobel wrote:
[...]

Best is a teacher (a real one, in flesh), next best is a good book.

But there is no good book.

Your chance to write one and earn some money by its publishing ;-)