Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!usenet.ukfsn.org!not-for-mail From: Martin Gregorie Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Hello World problem Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 22:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Organization: UK Free Software Network Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: <44512a58-e5ac-432c-b1b7-b1de713088dd@googlegroups.com> <50bacd7f$0$287$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <50bd717a$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.45.235.129 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: localhost.localdomain 1354661039 11383 84.45.235.129 (4 Dec 2012 22:43:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@localhost.localdomain NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 22:43:59 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:20103 On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:43:52 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 12/2/2012 6:05 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:39:38 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 12/1/2012 9:45 PM, John Dildy wrote: >>>> I have made changes to the project and I don't see the empty >>>> Javascript function. However, I am trying to use Java. >>>> >>>> Does anyone know if there is a beginner's group on google about Java >>>> and/or Javascript. I see to be contacting people that are way a >>>> way's from the HelloWorld.java >>> >>> comp.lang.java.help may be a bit more beginner friendly than >>> comp.lang.java.programmer! >>> >>> comp.lang.javascript sounds as if it is a good place for JavaScript, >>> but I have never read it. >>> >> I visited some years ago. Not a friendly place. > > Hm. > > Dislike of beginners or narrow definition of on topic? > Difficult to know. Seemed most like a bunch of acolytes fawning on every word of a self-appointed newsgroup leader who knew almost nothing except Javascript but didn't let that stop him handing down tablets about other languages. >> In any case, I don't think its a suitable language for a programming >> newbie: maybe things have changed, but I wasn't able to find a good >> book to learn it up from. I was looking for something like the O'Reilly >> Python, PHP or awk&sed books, but could find nothing apart from >> collections of code snippets and definitely nothing with a coherent >> description of its syntax and run-time environment. > > I have not read it myself but Professional JavaScript for Web Developers > from Wrox get good reviews and I have good experience with their > Professional Xxxxxxx books. > Noted, bookmarked and the PDF version downloaded. Thanks. If I ever need to do anything with js in future they'll serve me well. > And ECMA-262 is not hard to read. It is a lot easier than JLS. > I asked about language manuals, got pointed at "Javascript for the World Wide Web", which I thought should be good because I like Elizabeth Castro's "HTML for the World Wide Web" a lot. However the Js book isn't nearly as good: instead its much as I described with the language elements being buried under a heap of examples and details of browser specifics. There are some pretty good books where I worked at the time, but none seemed any better: most seemed to be aimed at people who can't program but who can paste half-understood bits of code into their web pages and hack at them until they do something useful. The ECMA-262 specification was never mentioned on that newsgroup or I'd have grabbed and used it. > Runtime environment is a bit more tricky, because it somewhat depends on > the runtime. > Yes, sure. But, is that poor language design and specification or merely a lack of rigour on the part of the interpreter writers? I know there was a lot of handwaving and developers doing their own thing in the early days so I just wish that, at the time, I'd found a definitive enough Javascript specification to work from. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |