Looking for Help with FAQ

[Peter Michaux]

I'm more concerned with what appears to be this group condoning Jorge's
posting of fake "FAQ Topic" posts. A couple of posters, including once
regular (though now infrequent) post Peter Michaux, actually chimed in
positive support.

Link?

Peter

 

[Garrett Smith]

Link?

Sorry, I don't have that. In searching the archives, I found the thread
I was thinking of where you had said that you thought "The Good Parts"
should be added. That post appeared later in the thread, but not in
response to the fake "FAQ Topic" response.

You wrote that you didn't want to dig up all the discussions.

Thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...e66b440/ce8ea0d1a50a36eb#msg_ce8ea0d1a50a36eb

I made an incorrect assessment of that post, which did not condone the
fake FAQ Topic response, but was in response to the first FAQ Topic
post. I apologize.

Garrett

 

[Peter Michaux]

Sorry, I don't have that. In searching the archives, I found the thread
I was thinking of where you had said that you thought "The Good Parts"
should be added. That post appeared later in the thread, but not in
response to the fake "FAQ Topic" response.

You wrote that you didn't want to dig up all the discussions.

Thread:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thr...

That seems more familiar.

I made an incorrect assessment of that post, which did not condone the
fake FAQ Topic response, but was in response to the first FAQ Topic
post. I apologize.

I didn't think I'd condone fake FAQ Topic posts.

Peter

 

[Garrett Smith]

I didn't think I'd condone fake FAQ Topic posts.

Glad I was wrong about that.

Your review of the book is a separate matter than fake FAQ posts.

I am confident that it will be in the FAQ by the second edition.

The other possibility is to go with the reviews system. I've said it
before. Books that are worth considering would be listed with links to
the relevant threads. Otherwise, no books are agreed on and some want
books.

====================================================================
Most books on javascript are awful and not worth discussing.

The following books have been reviewed on c.l.js:

ISBN: 0-596-10199-6
"JavaScript, The Good Parts", 2nd Edition, by Douglas Crockford.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...9ab113aa05c/3987eac87ad27966#3987eac87ad27966
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...7835ee728de/da5ccfc65e2df64a#da5ccfc65e2df64a
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/3a08fb741525ab6d/
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...e6e63494ee2/acb733a1c35f6ce5#ee9e4ee29e658d5d
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...506ee48b400/e65e00f5cad07676#e65e00f5cad07676
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...1b22b219433/4f69a95607d0b3ae#4f69a95607d0b3ae

"JavaScript: The Definitive Guide," 5th Edition, By David Flanagan.
[links, please]

"Professional Javascript," Nicholas Zakas
[links, please]

If you feel a book is not on the list, search the archives for reviews.

Objective, technical book reviews for javascript books are encouraged on
c.l.js.
====================================================================

Garrett

 

[Peter Michaux]

Glad I was wrong about that.

Your review of the book is a separate matter than fake FAQ posts.

I am confident that it will be in the FAQ by the second edition.

The other possibility is to go with the reviews system. I've said it
before. Books that are worth considering would be listed with links to
the relevant threads. Otherwise, no books are agreed on and some want
books.

====================================================================
Most books on javascript are awful and not worth discussing.

I find the above line is really unnecessarily obnoxious because it
states they "are awful and not worth discussing" in an absolute sense
when it is really a subjective judgment. Identifying technical errors
is not subjective but judging a book to be "awful" as a whole is
subjective.

I think it would be better to write something along the lines of
"Unfortunately the regulars on c.l.js have sited so many technical
errors in the majority of JavaScript books that consensus
recommendations have not emerged from the group. There are, however,
some books that have fared better under scrutiny. The following books
have been reviewed on c.l.js and while not perfect some regulars find
them useful either personally or worthy of recommendation to others:"

The following books have been reviewed on c.l.js:

ISBN: 0-596-10199-6
  "JavaScript, The Good Parts", 2nd Edition, by Douglas Crockford.http://groups.google.com/group/comp.../group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thr...

"JavaScript: The Definitive Guide," 5th Edition, By David Flanagan.
[links, please]

"Professional Javascript," Nicholas Zakas
[links, please]

If you feel a book is not on the list, search the archives for reviews.

Objective, technical book reviews for javascript books are encouraged on
c.l.js.
====================================================================

This system of links to posts in the group is a good idea since people
don't agree on which books should be in the FAQ.

Peter

 

[Garrett Smith]

[...]

====================================================================
Most books on javascript are awful and not worth discussing.

I find the above line is really unnecessarily obnoxious because it
states they "are awful and not worth discussing" in an absolute sense
when it is really a subjective judgment. Identifying technical errors
is not subjective but judging a book to be "awful" as a whole is
subjective.

The severity and prevalence of technical flaws in all books reviewed on
c.l.js has resulted in a list of 0 books which meet the criterion of
technical accuracy.

"how many" and "how bad" (severity and prevalence) is still subjective,
but is qualified by the c.l.js reviews.

Mentioning that there are books that should be summarily discarded and
even naming a few could save the reader a little time, at least. The FAQ
could mention a few books that discuss common myths such as "the three
primitives" or "everything is an object".

How about:
====================================================================
The severity and prevalence of technical flaws in books reviewed on
c.l.js has resulted in a list of 0 books which meet the criterion of
technical accuracy.

Most javascript books are so inaccurate that they are recommended
against. Books that mention "the three primitives" or "everything is an
object" or call a NodeList an "array" should be summarily discarded as
sources of misinformation.

To name a few "bad books":
"Pro JavaScript Design Patterns", Dustin Diaz
"Learning JavaScript", Shelley Powers

Books on how to use a library or toolkit do not teach javascript and are
therefore not recommended as javascript learning material.

[choose]
The reader can avoid less accurate books and may consider the reviews
for books that have not been summarily discarded:

[- or -]

The following books have been considered to have value by some
individuals on c.l.js. The reviews of these books are provided:
[/choose]

[list of books+reviews]
====================================================================

I think it would be better to write something along the lines of
"Unfortunately the regulars on c.l.js have sited so many technical
errors in the majority of JavaScript books that consensus
recommendations have not emerged from the group. There are, however,
some books that have fared better under scrutiny. The following books
have been reviewed on c.l.js and while not perfect some regulars find
them useful either personally or worthy of recommendation to others:"

Does what I wrote about "not summarily discarded" take all that into
account?

This system of links to posts in the group is a good idea since people
don't agree on which books should be in the FAQ.

Technical reviews give the reader a something that would not likely be
found on sites such as Amazon.com.

Reviews can help authors, too. An author who sees his book review
mentioned may click to read the review as feedback.

Garrett

 

[Peter Michaux]

How about:
====================================================================
The severity and prevalence of technical flaws in books reviewed on
c.l.js has resulted in a list of 0 books which meet the criterion of
technical accuracy.

I think this is too extreme. "Technical accuracy" implies perfection
which should not be required for recommendation. When is the last time
a substantial book or piece of code was written without a bug?

SICP, TACP, and K&R are perhaps the most highly recommended computing
books and all have errata:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/errata.html
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html#errata
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/2ediffs.html

The existence of some errata should not bar a book from
recommendation.

Most javascript books are so inaccurate that they are recommended
against. Books that mention "the three primitives" or "everything is an
object" or call a NodeList an "array" should be summarily discarded as
sources of misinformation.

If a book makes one reference to a NodeList as an array that should
not mean it should be "discarded as a source of misinformation."

To name a few "bad books":
"Pro JavaScript Design Patterns", Dustin Diaz

Is there a review on c.l.js to back this up? I've never red this book
but I wouldn't think it was "bad" simply because reading a book by
Dustin would be an eye opener into how he thinks about JavaScript. I
think that would be valuable.

"Learning JavaScript", Shelley Powers

Is there a review on c.l.js to back this up?

Why single out only a couple books as particularly bad? That is quite
unfair to the authors of books that may be better than others not
listed. Why not just focus on the good/less-bad books.

Books on how to use a library or toolkit do not teach javascript and are
therefore not recommended as javascript learning material.

[choose]
The reader can avoid less accurate books and may consider the reviews
for books that have not been summarily discarded:

[- or -]

The following books have been considered to have value by some
individuals on c.l.js. The reviews of these books are provided:
[/choose]

The second option above.

[list of books+reviews]
====================================================================

I think it would be better to write something along the lines of
"Unfortunately the regulars on c.l.js have sited so many technical
errors in the majority of JavaScript books that consensus
recommendations have not emerged from the group. There are, however,
some books that have fared better under scrutiny. The following books
have been reviewed on c.l.js and while not perfect some regulars find
them useful either personally or worthy of recommendation to others:"

Does what I wrote about "not summarily discarded" take all that into
account?

I think my version says the same but in a more diplomatic way.

Technical reviews give the reader a something that would not likely be
found on sites such as Amazon.com.

Reviews can help authors, too. An author who sees his book review
mentioned may click to read the review as feedback.

Sure. It seems big headed, however, to write a review for that
purpose.

Peter

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:56:01, Garrett Smith

...

Too long-winded and quite unnecessary. Leave it as it is, except
(1) Correct the grammar
(2) Diminish the use of lists. Length is not a virtue here.

A lengthy description of the situation can be put in the Notes, if
generally agreed; and on your Web site.



Many books have been reviewed; most cannot be recommended.

These are recommended by some c.l.js regulars (see the archives) :

* "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide," 5th Edition, David Flanagan,
ISBN 0-596-10199-6 ; Table of Contents, Errata.

* "JavaScript Pocket Reference" David Flanagan, ISBNs 1-56592-521-1,
978-1565925212 ; Table of Contents, Errata.



Eschew surplusage. But add the free printed standard as

* ECMA 262-3; Free, see in _PDF_ // linking to 3.2 section 1.

Further correction : Pocket Ref - those are details of my FIRST edition,
pub. 1998; Amazon says
# Paperback: 136 pages
# Publisher: O'Reilly Media, Inc.; 2 edition (29 Oct 2002)
# Language English
# ISBN-10: 0596004117
# ISBN-13: 978-0596004118

Book references normally include page count.

 

[Garrett Smith]

I think this is too extreme. "Technical accuracy" implies perfection
which should not be required for recommendation. When is the last time
a substantial book or piece of code was written without a bug?

It is possible to be technically accurate but imperfect. Accuracy
implies "degrees", while perfection is absolute.

SICP, TACP, and K&R are perhaps the most highly recommended computing
books and all have errata:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/errata.html
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html#errata
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/2ediffs.html

The existence of some errata should not bar a book from
recommendation.

A couple of spares won't ruin your bowling game.

If a book makes one reference to a NodeList as an array that should
not mean it should be "discarded as a source of misinformation."

What if it did so consistently or even a majority of the time? That
would reduce the accuracy somewhat.

If a NodeList is miscalled an Array repeatedly, it reinforces a
misconception and increases the significance of the mistake.

Is there a review on c.l.js to back this up? I've never red this book
but I wouldn't think it was "bad" simply because reading a book by
Dustin would be an eye opener into how he thinks about JavaScript. I
think that would be valuable.

Dustin Diaz' Pro JavaScript Design Patterns came up a while back. The
blog entry mentioned in that post is dated after the release of his
book. That entry had some bad stuff in it that got what seemed to be
fair and unbiased feedback. Dustin accepted all of the positive feedback
an no criticism.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...046b7856f7d/b4af3f837c7e84b9#b4af3f837c7e84b9

After reading that, I took a look at the parts of his book that were
available online for free. In the beginning of the book, right away, I
spotted some mistakes. Finding those again...

| Everything is an object (except for the three primitive datatypes...

and

| the toString method converts a number or boolean to a string.

He also copies Crockford's misnamed Function.prototype.method, which I
provided criticism for in another thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...b741525ab6d/cd561210abc96faa#cd561210abc96faa

Back to the Patterns book: I see a fair explanation of closures. It is
not nearly as bad as the Powers book. I have not read the entire
Patterns book. On a little closer examination, I may have been to hasty.
It may have a perspective that has some practical value.

Is there a review on c.l.js to back this up?

I found it fairly easily in the archives.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...706f3b3fc73/16ee91b015f4b62b#16ee91b015f4b62b

In that thread there was a poster who kept insisting that jQuery was
great because it was mentioned in that book. I took a look at that book
and was incredulously shocked. I reread the sections a few times to make
sure I was not misunderstanding. I still wonder, as it seems impossible
that anyone with basic javascript knowledge could write what I read and
believe it to be true.

Why single out only a couple books as particularly bad? That is quite
unfair to the authors of books that may be better than others not
listed. Why not just focus on the good/less-bad books.

I want to show some reasoning behind what is meant by "so inaccurate as
to be recommended against" so that a beginner might avoid that book.

One of those authors might think: "Why not someone else's bad book," right?

Books on how to use a library or toolkit do not teach javascript and are
therefore not recommended as javascript learning material.

[choose]
The reader can avoid less accurate books and may consider the reviews
for books that have not been summarily discarded:

[- or -]

The following books have been considered to have value by some
individuals on c.l.js. The reviews of these books are provided:
[/choose]

The second option above.

[list of books+reviews]
====================================================================

I think it would be better to write something along the lines of
"Unfortunately the regulars on c.l.js have sited so many technical
errors in the majority of JavaScript books that consensus
recommendations have not emerged from the group. There are, however,
some books that have fared better under scrutiny. The following books
have been reviewed on c.l.js and while not perfect some regulars find
them useful either personally or worthy of recommendation to others:"

Does what I wrote about "not summarily discarded" take all that into
account?

I think my version says the same but in a more diplomatic way.

"sited" makes no sense there. Do you want "cited" or "sighted"? "Cited"
implies that the errors were quoted on the group.

"consensus" implies agreement in whole. Depending on where the emphasis
is taken by the reader, that might say something more about the group's
ability to form consensus.

The reason for the strong words and examples it to make it clear to the
reader to be careful when selecting a book.

Outline:
Unfortunately the majority of JavaScript books have been found to
contain so many technical errors that consensus recommendations have not
emerged from the group.

The following books have been considered to have value by some
individuals on c.l.js. The reviews of these books are provided:

[book 1]
[review 1]
[review 2]
[book 2]
...

That needs links to archived book reviews for Flanagan and "Professional
javascript".

I think I remember Flanagan saying that the pocket javascript guide was
outdated or something about 1 year ago.


That is part of the idea. There should be no favoritism to somebody's
favorite author. Objective reviews inform the reader about the books.

Sure. It seems big headed, however, to write a review for that
purpose.

Big headed? I don't think so. Giving a personal review to an author
seems like a respectable thing to do. Publishing it on the newsgroup
provides a new viewpoint that would ideally have some value to readers
of that book.

I've reviewed Doug's book a little on here and I don't think my review
was big-headed at all. He does not respond to all email -- that I know
for a fact. Whether or not he reads them, I cannot say. He does pop in
from time to time, so he may likely read that and fix the mistakes.
Hopefully.

Garrett

 

[Peter Michaux]

I think my version says the same but in a more diplomatic way.

"sited" makes no sense there. Do you want "cited" or "sighted"? "Cited"
implies that the errors were quoted on the group.
"cited"

Outline:
Unfortunately the majority of JavaScript books have been found to
contain so many technical errors that consensus recommendations have not
emerged from the group.

The following books have been considered to have value by some
individuals on c.l.js. The reviews of these books are provided:

[book 1]
[review 1]
[review 2]
[book 2]
...

That needs links to archived book reviews for Flanagan and "Professional
javascript".

I think I remember Flanagan saying that the pocket javascript guide was
outdated or something about 1 year ago.

Seems good.


Peter

 

[Garrett Smith]

[...]

Outline:
Unfortunately the majority of JavaScript books have been found to
contain so many technical errors that consensus recommendations have not
emerged from the group.

The following books have been considered to have value by some
individuals on c.l.js. The reviews of these books are provided:

[book 1]
[review 1]
[review 2]
[book 2]
...

That needs links to archived book reviews for Flanagan and "Professional
javascript".

I think I remember Flanagan saying that the pocket javascript guide was
outdated or something about 1 year ago.

Seems good.

Great.

What is needed next for the entry are 1) a list of books with 2) links
to reviews.

"JavaScript, The Definitive Guide," 5th Edition, by David Flanagan
Published: Aug 2006
Pages: 1018
Errata: http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596101992/errata/
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...98f77fd2a66/9252aa024e058dea#c5f145ae807c918e
[more reviews]

"JavaScript, The Good Parts," 1st Edition, by Douglas Crockford.
Published: May 2008
Pages: 170
Errata: http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/errata/
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...9ab113aa05c/3987eac87ad27966#3987eac87ad27966
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...7835ee728de/da5ccfc65e2df64a#da5ccfc65e2df64a
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/3a08fb741525ab6d/
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...e6e63494ee2/acb733a1c35f6ce5#ee9e4ee29e658d5d
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...506ee48b400/e65e00f5cad07676#e65e00f5cad07676
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...1b22b219433/4f69a95607d0b3ae#4f69a95607d0b3ae

The JavaScript Pocket Reference was not thoroughly reviews, and its
removal was suggested by its author, David Flanagan:
| The JavaScript pocket reference is probably out of date, and while
| I appreciate the listing, you might consider removing that link.
| (Though the regular readers of this group might have a more well-
| informed opinion about whether it is still a useful work.)
- D Flanagan

My personal opinion on The Good Parts is that it has too many technical
errors at this point.

Code examples for any book should be tested before publishing. O'Reilly
labels some code that does not work properly as "typo" (Green label on
Errata page). To me, code that does not work is a technical error that
could have been avoided.

The Definitive Guide promotes common misconception of the existence
"Client Side" and "Core" javascript based on its organization. The
title, the list of reviewers., and endorsement by Brendan Eich gives
reader a sense of trust in the book.

If there are no other reviews to link to, then that is will be listed in
the FAQ.

Garrett

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:19:12, Garrett Smith

The JavaScript Pocket Reference was not thoroughly reviews, and its
removal was suggested by its author, David Flanagan:
| The JavaScript pocket reference is probably out of date, and while
| I appreciate the listing, you might consider removing that link.
| (Though the regular readers of this group might have a more well-
| informed opinion about whether it is still a useful work.)
- D Flanagan

The Pocket Guide is useful because of its size. It can be operated with
one hand, unlike Goodman and the other Flanagan, which are unwieldy. It
enables a rapid lookup of half-remembered details. Its age, if known,
is unimportant (though I'd encourage production of a new edition
provided that there is no increase in size or weight).