Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #9804 > unrolled thread

JavaScript Book Recommendations?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-30 11:49 -0800
    Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-12-30 13:18 -0700
      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-30 13:45 -0800
      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2011-12-30 22:43 +0000
    Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2011-12-30 22:25 +0200
      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-30 13:52 -0800
        Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2011-12-30 23:28 +0000
          Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-31 23:47 -0800
            Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-01-01 13:11 +0000
              Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-02 10:54 -0800
                Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-01-02 23:31 +0000
                  Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-02 17:10 -0800
                    Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-01-03 11:17 +0000
                      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-03 12:26 -0800
        Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 09:50 -0800
      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-01-01 16:15 +0000
    Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2011-12-30 12:38 -0800
      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-30 13:57 -0800
    Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Dr J R Stockton <reply1152@merlyn.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-31 21:01 +0000
      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Dr J R Stockton <reply1201@merlyn.demon.co.uk> - 2012-01-03 10:28 +0000
    Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-01-01 15:58 +0000
      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-01-01 17:14 +0000
        Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-02 10:59 -0800
          Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-01-02 19:07 +0000
            Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-02 12:10 -0800
        Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Dr J R Stockton <reply1152@merlyn.demon.co.uk> - 2012-01-02 20:08 +0000
        Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Dr J R Stockton <reply1201@merlyn.demon.co.uk> - 2012-01-03 20:44 +0000
          Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-01-04 12:32 +0000
            Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2012-01-04 09:15 -0700
            Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-01-04 10:44 -0800
    Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? williamc <temp4@williamc.com> - 2012-01-02 15:18 -0500
    Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-06 00:58 +0100
      Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-01-06 03:16 +0100
        Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-06 12:06 +0100
          Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-01-06 21:05 +0100
          Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-09 13:54 +0100
          Re: JavaScript Book Recommendations? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2012-01-11 15:59 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#9804 — JavaScript Book Recommendations?

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?

     Other titles?

     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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9807

Gene said:

>     In another thread, Tim Streater mentioned "JavaScript Bible 7th
> Edition".  What do you think of it?
>

Gene:

    I purchased it on Amazon this morning.  Hope to get it by Jan 3rd.

    Will let you know what I think of it next week.

-Mel Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9810

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:18:27 -0700, "Mel Smith"
<med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> wrote:

>Gene said:
>
>>     In another thread, Tim Streater mentioned "JavaScript Bible 7th
>> Edition".  What do you think of it?

>    I purchased it on Amazon this morning.  Hope to get it by Jan 3rd.
>
>    Will let you know what I think of it next week.

     Yes, please.  I am particularly interested in the past-the-basics
stuff.

     (Has anyone else noticed how many texts cover the basics and
ignore the next step?)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9813

In article <9m6kkpFqvU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> wrote:

> Gene said:
> 
> >     In another thread, Tim Streater mentioned "JavaScript Bible 7th
> > Edition".  What do you think of it?
> >
> 
> Gene:
> 
>     I purchased it on Amazon this morning.  Hope to get it by Jan 3rd.
> 
>     Will let you know what I think of it next week.

If you go to Amazon, you can "look inside" (at least on UK Amazon). The 
thing for me about the Bible is that I find it readable and quite 
comprehensive. There are those here who say it's wrong in this or that 
regard and they might well be right, but then what do you expect in a 
book of that length. It also has a nice index.

I'd advise looking "inside" as many as you can - readability is IMO a 
very important characteristic - but for all I know, you may find the 
Bible unreadable. In the final analysis, only you can judge.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9808

2011-12-30 21:49, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>       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".)

I think I have read this entry in the FAQ. You are not saying what you 
are unhappy with it, so can you expect anything but a mix of personal 
opinions, at most? (Usenet is dying, so don't expect too much even in 
that category.) Books are fairly cheap, and many of them have samples 
and tables of contents online, so you can make your own decisions.

"JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" (in its latest edition) is extensive 
and up-to-date. But it's a handbook, not a textbook.

"JavaScript: The Good Parts" is an extended essay with strong opinions, 
mostly reasonable. It doesn't really teach JavaScript, but it presents 
an expert opinion on what is worth learning in JavaScript.

Also beware that people participating in forums like this have strong 
tendency towards being theoretical and biased, instead of considering 
what might help you to get your job done. They might worry much more 
about your coding style than the question whether you can actually 
produce working code. The resident troll is of course a grossly 
exaggerated example of this, but even apparently reasonable people have 
personal likes and dislikes as well as personal agendas and could judge 
books from a very narrow perspective.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9811

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:25:27 +0200, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

>2011-12-30 21:49, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>       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".)
>
>I think I have read this entry in the FAQ. You are not saying what you 
>are unhappy with it, so can you expect anything but a mix of personal 
>opinions, at most? (Usenet is dying, so don't expect too much even in 
>that category.) Books are fairly cheap, and many of them have samples 
>and tables of contents online, so you can make your own decisions.

     Well, I am, but no use ranting.  I was expecting more than two
books, and at least one that is not flawed.  From what I read of the
links, both are flawed.  (Yes, I might be wrong about this, but if I
knew for sure, I would not need that FAQ's answer.)

>"JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" (in its latest edition) is extensive 
>and up-to-date. But it's a handbook, not a textbook.

     That would be fine.

>"JavaScript: The Good Parts" is an extended essay with strong opinions, 
>mostly reasonable. It doesn't really teach JavaScript, but it presents 
>an expert opinion on what is worth learning in JavaScript.

     I have strong opinions myself, but I would not presume to wrap
them up with a language.  I do not want to buy into a bias.  After I
know more, I might round out with such a text, but then, I would know
more what I was getting into.

>Also beware that people participating in forums like this have strong 
>tendency towards being theoretical and biased, instead of considering 
>what might help you to get your job done. They might worry much more 

     True.

>about your coding style than the question whether you can actually 
>produce working code. The resident troll is of course a grossly 

     Very true.  Elsewhere, I once asked somewhat detailed language
question and posted related code, and one poster replied just to snark
me on my variable naming convention (and did not answer my question at
all).

>exaggerated example of this, but even apparently reasonable people have 
>personal likes and dislikes as well as personal agendas and could judge 
>books from a very narrow perspective.

     My troll detection is pretty good.  For this group, I have one
flagged.  Another poster is questionable (not necessarily a troll as
such, but his posts are very difficult to interpret).

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9816

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 30 dec 2011 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Elsewhere, I once asked somewhat detailed language
> question and posted related code, and one poster replied just to snark
> me on my variable naming convention (and did not answer my question at
> all).

If that elsewhere was on usenet, that is perfectly reasonable.

Usenet NG's, also this c.l.j., are not paid or free helpdesks, 
and the response is as the responder wishes,
not necessarily to the liking of the OQ,
and not necessarily an answer at all.

That usually the answer is ment to help you,
even perhaps in a way you do not want to be helped,
is just a happy or unhappy coincidence,
not your right.  

" > replied just to snark me on my variable naming convention "

There is a strong feeling that naming conventions are very usefull,
[ (naming-)conventions should be strict and not variable ;-) ]
and responses are not ment for the OP only, as this is not email,
so the response could be well ment.

So "just to snark" [I am just guessing what you mean by "snark",
never having heard the word before, but the "just" says it all] 
is obviously incorrect,
only reflecting your personal feeling, 
not necessarily or even probably the poster's intention.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9837

On 30 Dec 2011 23:28:58 GMT, "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

[snip]

>There is a strong feeling that naming conventions are very usefull,
>[ (naming-)conventions should be strict and not variable ;-) ]
>and responses are not ment for the OP only, as this is not email,
>so the response could be well ment.

     Not in that group.  I do have a naming convention that works very
well for me.  It did not happen to be the other person's convention.

>So "just to snark" [I am just guessing what you mean by "snark",
>never having heard the word before, but the "just" says it all] 
>is obviously incorrect,
>only reflecting your personal feeling, 
>not necessarily or even probably the poster's intention.

     How amusing.  You do not know what the word "snark" means, but
you can conclude that my statement is obviously incorrect?

     Well, no, it is not obviously incorrect.  You do not know the
background and are simply assuming that the post was well-meant.  That
is a very questionable assumption.  USENET, as you may have heard, has
trolls.

Sinerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9840

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 01 jan 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> On 30 Dec 2011 23:28:58 GMT, "Evertjan."
> <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>There is a strong feeling that naming conventions are very usefull,
>>[ (naming-)conventions should be strict and not variable ;-) ]
>>and responses are not ment for the OP only, as this is not email,
>>so the response could be well ment.
> 
>      Not in that group.  I do have a naming convention that works very
> well for me.  It did not happen to be the other person's convention.
> 
>>So "just to snark" [I am just guessing what you mean by "snark",
>>never having heard the word before, but the "just" says it all] 
>>is obviously incorrect,
>>only reflecting your personal feeling, 
>>not necessarily or even probably the poster's intention.
> 
>      How amusing.  You do not know what the word "snark" means, but
> you can conclude that my statement is obviously incorrect?
> 
>      Well, no, it is not obviously incorrect.  You do not know the
> background and are simply assuming that the post was well-meant.  That
> is a very questionable assumption. 

Happy New Year, Gene,

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.

You seemed to assume the right to an answer on Usenet, 
and so declare anyone that does not anwer the way you want a troll.

> USENET, as you may have heard, has trolls.

"has"?

A troll is not a troll just because you do not like a response.

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

btw, what is your definition of this "snark" slang?

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9868

On 01 Jan 2012 13:11:34 GMT, "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

[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.  Do
you really not see anything wrong with your behaviour?

>You seemed to assume the right to an answer on Usenet, 
>and so declare anyone that does not anwer the way you want a troll.

     No.

>> USENET, as you may have heard, has trolls.
>
>"has"?
>
>A troll is not a troll just because you do not like a response.

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

>Shall we return to the beauty of programming [in javascript]?
>
>btw, what is your definition of this "snark" slang?

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

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9873

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

> On 01 Jan 2012 13:11:34 GMT, "Evertjan."
> <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:
> 
> [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.

>>You seemed to assume the right to an answer on Usenet, 
>>and so declare anyone that does not anwer the way you want a troll.
 
>      No.
 
>>> USENET, as you may have heard, has trolls.
>>
>>"has"?
>>
>>A troll is not a troll just because you do not like a response.
> 
>      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?

>>btw, what is your definition of this "snark" slang?
> 
>      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.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9877

On 02 Jan 2012 23:31:26 GMT, "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote on 02 jan 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On 01 Jan 2012 13:11:34 GMT, "Evertjan."
>> <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:
>> 
>> [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 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.

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

>>>You seemed to assume the right to an answer on Usenet, 
>>>and so declare anyone that does not anwer the way you want a troll.
> 
>>      No.
> 
>>>> USENET, as you may have heard, has trolls.
>>>
>>>"has"?
>>>
>>>A troll is not a troll just because you do not like a response.
>> 
>>      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".

     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.

>>>btw, what is your definition of this "snark" slang?
>> 
>>      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.

     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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9878

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

> On 02 Jan 2012 23:31:26 GMT, "Evertjan."
> <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:
> 
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote on 02 jan 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> On 01 Jan 2012 13:11:34 GMT, "Evertjan."
>>> <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [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. 

 
>>>  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.
> 
>      Immaterial.  You do not know what something meant, and you still
> claimed your conclusion was obvious.
> 
>>>>You seemed to assume the right to an answer on Usenet, 
>>>>and so declare anyone that does not anwer the way you want a troll.
>> 
>>>      No.
>> 
>>>>> USENET, as you may have heard, has trolls.
>>>>
>>>>"has"?
>>>>
>>>>A troll is not a troll just because you do not like a response.
>>> 
>>>      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".

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.
 
>>>>btw, what is your definition of this "snark" slang?
>>> 
>>>      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.
> 
>      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].
 
>>Defining someone as a troll is nasty in itself, tendency for nastyness
>>is in all of us.
> 
>      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.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9895

On 03 Jan 2012 11:17:28 GMT, "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

[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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9866

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>>>       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".)
>
>> I think I have read this entry in the FAQ. You are not saying what you
>> are unhappy with it, so can you expect anything but a mix of personal
>> opinions, at most? (Usenet is dying, so don't expect too much even in
>> that category.) Books are fairly cheap, and many of them have samples
>> and tables of contents online, so you can make your own decisions.
>
>      Well, I am, but no use ranting.  I was expecting more than two
> books, and at least one that is not flawed.  From what I read of the
> links, both are flawed.  (Yes, I might be wrong about this, but if I
> knew for sure, I would not need that FAQ's answer.)

All programming books I've ever read are flawed in some way or
another.  These two seem to be by group consensus here the least
flawed.  Flanagan's book really is thorough and its mistakes are not
ones likely to trip up beginners or even intermediate programmers.
(I've only started reading the sixth edition, but I've owned three
previous ones.)  Crockford's book is more problematic because it takes
such a strong stand, and implies that anything that's not in his list
of good parts should in all cases be avoided, which is usually not the
case.  But I still recommend it to anyone who already understands the
basics of the language as a good starting point for what to avoid.

These days, I'd also suggest, with some caveats, Stefanov's
_Javascript Pattern_ and Zakas' _High Performance Javascript_.  I've
heard really good things about Haverbeke _Eloquent Javascript_ as a
beginner's book, so when my 15-year old son was looking to learn some
JS, I suggested it to him, and I think it's working well for him.  One
other interesting book is Johansen's _Test Driven JavaScript
Development_, which focuses on writing JS in a very testable manner,
but which might actually work as a tutorial for how to built a medium
sized project -- not a first book, but possibly a good second book.

>> "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" (in its latest edition) is extensive
>> and up-to-date. But it's a handbook, not a textbook.
>
>      That would be fine.

The trouble with trying to really learn JS from it is that there is no
clear path through all the material if you like to learn these things
through hands-on projects.  If you're the type who can read a
reference book through and then start working on a project, referring
back to it as necessary, this is worth your time.  But for anyone who
does JS and likes to have reference books handy, this is by far the
best one.


>> "JavaScript: The Good Parts" is an extended essay with strong opinions,
>> mostly reasonable. It doesn't really teach JavaScript, but it presents
>> an expert opinion on what is worth learning in JavaScript.
>
>      I have strong opinions myself, but I would not presume to wrap
> them up with a language.  I do not want to buy into a bias.  After I
> know more, I might round out with such a text, but then, I would know
> more what I was getting into.

Any reading you do is going to be by a biased author.  Crockford makes
his biases readily apparent, and generally backs them up.  This pithy
books sums up much of the strength of the language.  I would
definitely recommend reading it.  Just remember that you still need to
understand the parts he calls bad, even if only to prevent yourself
from using them, but more likely in order to really understand when
they might still be useful.


> [ ... ]
>      My troll detection is pretty good.  For this group, I have one
> flagged.  Another poster is questionable (not necessarily a troll as
> such, but his posts are very difficult to interpret).

Just be careful with this.  In this group, the people with the most
off-putting personas are often the most knowledgeable and the most
likely to have truly insightful points to make.  There are plenty of
others who are also quite interesting and helpful and not so
obnoxious, but don't discount the annoying ones too  much.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9844

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 at 22:25:27, in comp.lang.javascript, Jukka K.
Korpela wrote:

  <snip>
>Also beware that people participating in forums like this have strong
>tendency towards being theoretical and biased, instead of considering
>what might help you to get your job done. They might worry much more
>about your coding style than the question whether you can actually
>produce working code.

Why do we comment on style? Because beginners need to be told that if
code is a tangled mess it's very difficult to find out what's wrong. And
because a week later it is very difficult to convince yourself that it's
right. And because a year later you won't be able to work out what it
does.

Also because it's difficult to find someone willing to help you solve
your problem.

Working code? How do you know for sure it's working if you can't see
what the code does or doesn't do?


>The resident troll is of course a grossly exaggerated example of this,
>but even apparently reasonable people have personal likes and dislikes
>as well as personal agendas and could judge books from a very narrow
>perspective.

I judge a book harshly if it tells lies.

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9809

On Dec 30, 1:49 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> 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?
>
>      Other titles?
>
>      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.

"fine points" such as? I think the problem with recommending book A or
book B is the lack of knowing the experience of the person asking.

<http://eloquentjavascript.net/> is an okay book to teach you a little
bit about general programming through the eyes of JavaScript (non-
idiomatic).

Steven Levithan's book is a decent desktop reference on Regular
Expressions. It won't teach you anything deep and fundamental about
them, but it has a nice collection, as does his website: <http://
blog.stevenlevithan.com/>

Personally I learned JavaScript in the late 90's by reading other
people's source code (now I feel old). Sadly many of those websites no
longer exist. One of them that does and which was a great inspiration
to me at the time on how to write elegant code is <http://
www.dhteumeuleu.com/>. Today I know longer follow the same style, but
it was a great resource nonetheless (especially when he used to host a
forum)

MDN is a decent resource <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/
JavaScript>.
There are flaws and incomplete guides and pages as it is a wiki, but
overall the quality has been increasing at a steady rate. Personally I
find it a good place to look up minutiae (ex: in what order does
reduce take its parameters?)

I think the most important resource today is having a place where you
can ask stupid/ignorant questions and not get a stupid/ignorant
response.

For beginning to intermediate JS users I'd say look to JSMentors or
StackOverflow. For Intermediate to Advanced, CLJS and JSMentors.
Beyond that and you probably need to look at subject specific forums/
groups or individual people. JSMentors/CLJS could still be a decent
place to ask, but the noise ratio increases it seems on almost correct
answers. For example, if I had a hard problem I was trying to solve in
some legacy environment (IE5.5), I might ask David Mark directly. If I
had a Code Golfing question I might pose it towards P01 <http://
www.p01.org/>, etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9812

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:38:59 -0800 (PST), "Michael Haufe (TNO)"
<tno@thenewobjective.com> wrote:

>On Dec 30, 1:49 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>>      Other titles?
>>
>>      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.
>
>"fine points" such as? I think the problem with recommending book A or
>book B is the lack of knowing the experience of the person asking.

     I am an experienced programmer-analyst digging into Web
programming seriously now.  I have gone fairly thoroughly through a
reasonably detailed intro text.  (I call it an intro text, because it
starts from square one, but does not cover everything or so.)  By gone
through, I mean that I did most of the examples and changed them to
suit my preferences.  I am ready for the next level.

[snipped pointers]

>I think the most important resource today is having a place where you
>can ask stupid/ignorant questions and not get a stupid/ignorant
>response.

     Yes.  There are little bits that fall through the cracks, and
having someone to discuss things with really helps.

     This group does quite well in that respect.

[snipped pointers]

     Thank you for the pointers.  I will be digging into them, and I
hope, find some that will do it for me.

     Happy New Year.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9831

In comp.lang.javascript message <665sf7hv1a1r8dg54e9fm7tq1t0j17rudk@4ax.
com>, Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:49:29, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> posted:

>     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".)


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.

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

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk  Turnpike 6.05  WinXP.
 Web  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
 Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
 DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9900

In comp.lang.javascript message <TzIb1gZkg3$OFwLU@invalid.uk.co.demon.me
rlyn.invalid>, Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:01:24, Dr J R Stockton
<reply1152@merlyn.demon.co.uk> posted:

>In comp.lang.javascript message <665sf7hv1a1r8dg54e9fm7tq1t0j17rudk@4ax.
>com>, Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:49:29, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> posted:
>
>>     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".)
>
>
>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".

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London UK  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk  IE8 FF8 Op11 Sf5 Cr15
   news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
   <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
   <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web