Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Cezary Tomczyk Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:36:18 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <46247081-75ce-430c-8319-459ddcdf17fe@bx4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <1868da91-d142-49ee-8b09-27c0983c1af4@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: RMrsF+s1qSnxq5Qkkqjnpw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17508 W dniu 2012-12-05 22:56, Matt McDonald pisze: [...] > 3. Cezary Tomczyk, and [...] I wouldn't say that I am something like expert, but if I can help in many parts then why not :-) If place for site is needed then I can share some "part" of my current virtual server. This is just by the way. [...] > I agree that the group can be more conciliatory. However, in my > experience, many "newcomers" who have left the group have > misinterpreted the "tone" of notable members. Pedantry *is* > necessary for technical depth. Few, if any, communities exist on the I agree as for pedantry, but the content must be understandable and must contains _working examples_. Perfectly for me would be nice to be able to add comments on every example. Something like "code review" which can also improve example quality and from comments user can also learn because of different points of view. > Internet that can discuss JavaScript and client-side development at > the level of technical depth that this group can. I have participated > in various fora discussing JavaScript over the past three years and, > none have shared the expertise of this group. StackOverflow, Reddit, > and ##javascript (Freenode IRC) have all failed. I wouldn't say so badly about StackOverflow. I saw there many great explanations with examples. Well, Thomas also share his knowledge on StackOverflow :-) > Though I think that group veterans who already know of the > "javascript" distinction should not be lectured, I think that > novices definitely need to be aware that JavaScript is an ECMAScript > implementation. That is a fundamental point. Thomas is definitely > right to emphasise it. Then it's _maybe better_ to define it once at the beginning and then later use just "JavaScript". -- Cezary Tomczyk http://www.ctomczyk.pl/