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

[Dr J R Stockton]

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

In comp.lang.javas cript message <gcguan$n7n$1$8 302bc10@news.de mon.co.uk>
, Wed, 8 Oct 2008 01:19:34, Richard Cornford
<Richard@litote s.demon.co.ukpo sted:

>FAQ Topic - What books cover EcmaScript?

>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.

It was certainly not accurate, because I am a regular and I endorse
Flanagan's "JavaScript Pocket Reference", which is a book.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/- FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

[Dr J R Stockton]

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

In comp.lang.javas cript message <gcif2e$ji9$00$ 1@news.t-online.com>,
Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:11:25, Stevo <no@mail.invali dposted:

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>No matter the (im)possibility of pronunciation, I would regard CLJ an
>acronym (and use the `acronym' element) -- if the newsgroup name contained
>those uppercase characters. Since it does not, it should be written in
>lowercase and marked up an acronym nonetheless.
>YMMV, see also <http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Acronym>.
>PointedEars

>
>It's not an acronym though.
>
>Acronym = "word" made up of the initials components in a phrase or name
>and can be used in a sentence in the same way as any regular word and
>pronounced as a word. Examples: RAM, ROM, LASER, RADAR, BOGOF.

CLJ can readily be pronounced; it is like KLUDGE but with a shortened
vowel; therefore, Merriam-Webster could have "Pronunciat ion: \'klj\" if
it had the word. I'd not be at all surprised if it were a word in some
[South-]Eastern European language; they can pronounce the strangest
strings there. Google Translate has no Welsh!

Using c.l.j breaks the sentence too much.
Using clj makes one try to understand it as a normal word.
The string CLJ has the required properties.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/- w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/programs/- see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[Richard Cornford]

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

On Oct 8, 5:00 pm, dhtml wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

>On Oct 8, 6:33 am, dhtml wrote:

<snip>

>>CLJ uses capitals for the abbreviation.

>

>In what possible sense? If "CLJ" is intended as a label for
>the comp.lang.javas cirpt Usenet newsgroup "use" anything?
>If you mean contributors to the group use CLJ to refer to
>the group then that is only a tiny (if vociferous) minority
>and my judgment would be that historically "c.l.j" has been
>the most commonly employed shorthand when referring to the
>group (with "c.l.js" coming second).

>
I used "CLJ"

So not "CLJ uses"?

so that it would stand out as initials, or an "intialism" .
>

>>if written as "clj", it isn't correctly abbreviated as
>>other things typically are (FAQ, XML, LSD, WTF, et c)
>>and it doesn't stand out as much.

>

>So don't do that.

>
Don't use "clj"?

Yes, don't to that.

Which form do this groups regulars prefer?

I prefer the traditional c.l.j, it is clear enough in context and
nobody has proposed anything better.

>>And FAQ is all lowercase words, too.

>

>That, very self-evidently, is not true.

>
When used as a title (and it usually is) FAQ would be
"Frequently Asked Questions." Otherwise, it can be
correctly written as "frequently asked questions."

But you cannot "correctly" write Comp.Lang.Javas cript and refer to
this group.

Richard.

[Richard Cornford]

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

On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:

John G Harris wrote:

>dhtml wrote:

><snip>

>>I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.

Without even asking?

<snip>

>>I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping

>by a nearby book store.

>

>"casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to
>the FAQ.

Absolutely.

Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which
is very short.
>
Did you think it should be removed?

It should never have been added in the first place without some
discussion before hand.

Reviews were more positive than negative:

<snip>

Reviews are irrelevant to the question of whether some book is
suitable for inclusion. Some consideration should be given to the
context in which it is presented; as a proposed learning aid for
novices. Crockfords book, whatever else it may be, is not that.

I have not looked into Pro JavaScript Design Patterns.

<snip>

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

Richard.

[dhtml]

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

Richard Cornford wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:

>John G Harris wrote:

>>dhtml wrote:

><snip>

>>>I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.

>
Without even asking?
>
<snip>

>>>I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping
>>by a nearby book store.
>>"casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to
>>the FAQ.

>
Absolutely.
>

>Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which
>is very short.
>>
>Did you think it should be removed?

>
It should never have been added in the first place without some
discussion before hand.
>

>Reviews were more positive than negative:

<snip>
>
Reviews are irrelevant to the question of whether some book is
suitable for inclusion. Some consideration should be given to the
context in which it is presented; as a proposed learning aid for
novices. Crockfords book, whatever else it may be, is not that.
>

Peter Michaux:

| On Aug 18, 5:11=A0am, MartinRineh...@ gmail.com wrote:
| I have Flanagan, Resig and Crockford. At present I'm using Crockford
| almost exclusively. Should Crockford replace Flanagan in the
| JavaScript FAQ "What's the best book?"?
|
| I don't think so but it is good enough that it could be added.
| Crockford's book has some good ideas but Flanagan's book covers the
| whole language, browser scripting and the DOM.
| var contentstr="";
|
| Peter

I also felt it was worth including. Given the dearth of decent books on
the subject, it seemed to be a valuable recommendation. Someone looking
for a book and, not finding one, might decide to buy something else.

Having said that, I will remove the entry for "JavaScript : The Good
Parts." Until I get a stronger consensus, it will not be included.

Garrett

>
Richard.

[dhtml]

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

dhtml wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

>On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:

>>John G Harris wrote:
>>>dhtml wrote:

>
Peter Michaux:
>
| On Aug 18, 5:11=A0am, MartinRineh...@ gmail.com wrote:
| I have Flanagan, Resig and Crockford. At present I'm using Crockford
| almost exclusively. Should Crockford replace Flanagan in the
| JavaScript FAQ "What's the best book?"?
|
| I don't think so but it is good enough that it could be added.
| Crockford's book has some good ideas but Flanagan's book covers the
| whole language, browser scripting and the DOM.
| var contentstr="";
|
| Peter
>

Correction:
Peter did not write:
var contentstr="";

(copy-paste error).

Garrett

Garrett
>

>>
>Richard.

[Conrad Lender]

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

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

>>>>I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.

>>
>Without even asking?

Give him a break, he did just ask, and he did remove the reference after
reading your comment. Maintaining an FAQ for a group where there's
hardly ever a consensus about any topic at all can't be an easy job.

I also felt it was worth including. Given the dearth of decent books on
the subject, it seemed to be a valuable recommendation. Someone looking
for a book and, not finding one, might decide to buy something else.

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.

If you read it for what it is (ie, _not_ a tutorial, but a collection
of recommendations , opinions, critique and examples), it's quite
interesting. IMO, it would be a good idea to put it back on the FAQ book
list, with an appropriate disclaimer or warning.

There just aren't any perfect books about JavaScript, and if we keep
this up, soon there won't be any book recommendations left in the FAQ.
That would be a Bad Thing, because some people prefer to learn from
books, and without guidance, they'll pick up something like "JavaScript
in 7 days" or "Impress your friends with AJAX".

I suggest that we also list books without a 100% approval rate, *and*
include some sort of short commentary about its shortcomings, a few
lines should be enough.

As it is, the only two books listed are the Flanagan guides. I've read
the Definitive Guide (partly), and while it's not a bad book, he does
get some important things wrong (inheritance for example). I think
Crockford's book is on a much higher level, and if Flanagan stays, so
should Crockford. Actually, I think they should both stay, and should
each be accompanied by a short paragraph mentioning some of the
objections that were raised here.

As for that other book, "Pro JavaScript Design Patterns", I haven't read
it, but I've read the blog article Garrett linked to, and what Diaz
recommends is frankly horrible. If the book is anything like his blog,
that one should be avoided.


- Conrad

[dhtml]

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

Conrad Lender wrote:

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

>I also felt it was worth including. Given the dearth of decent books on
>the subject, it seemed to be a valuable recommendation. Someone looking
>for a book and, not finding one, might decide to buy something else.

>
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

>
- Conrad

[Conrad Lender]

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

On 2008-10-10 01:42, dhtml wrote:

Conrad Lender 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?

I think it should. But that's my personal opinion, and if we're going by
consensus, this is just one vote in favor. If anybody can come up with a
better suggestion, that's fine with me, just as long as the book section
doesn't remain empty because we're too pedantic in our selection.

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.

It's probably not a good book for novices, but that's beside the point.
Nobody said that only beginner material should be listed in the book
section. The current headline is "What books cover javascript?", not
"Which should be my first javascript book."

Again, I think that books that did not manage to receive 100% approval
from the regulars can and should be included, provided that a suitable
disclaimer is added. Flanagan's still there, after all, and there's been
a number of discussions about the errors in that book here.


- Conrad

[sasuke]

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

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]

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

sasuke wrote:

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

/sasuke

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

dhtml wrote:

Conrad Lender wrote:

>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
--
var bugRiddenCrashP ronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M SIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M ac') != -1
) // Plone, register_functi on.js:16

[Dr J R Stockton]

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

Re-post?

In comp.lang.javas cript message <9a219060-0827-4102-9163-390596942b7b@e1
7g2000hsg.googl egroups.com>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:10:04, Richard Cornford
<Richard.Cornfo rd@googlemail.c omposted:

>On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:

>John G Harris wrote:

>>dhtml wrote:

>><snip>

>>>I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.

>
>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.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.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)

[Peter Michaux]

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

On Oct 9, 11:10 am, Richard Cornford <Richard.Cornf. ..@googlemail.c om>
wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:17 pm, dhtml wrote:
>

John G Harris wrote:

dhtml wrote:

<snip>

>I Added JavaScript: The Good Parts to that list.

>
Without even asking?

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

>I read through about half of it, casually, when stopping
by a nearby book store.

>

"casually" isn't good enough for something to be added to
the FAQ.

>
Absolutely.
>

Yes, but it's enough to cover a majority of the book, which
is very short.

>

Did you think it should be removed?

>
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.

I have not looked into Pro JavaScript Design Patterns.

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

Agreed.

Peter

[Peter Michaux]

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

On Oct 7, 5:19 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

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