Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by lorlarz, Aug 18, 2008.

  1. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
    This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    world's
    shortests books).

    I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
    _is_
    smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
    JavaScript
    and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like
    how to play
    with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
    With what
    Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_
    javascript on the
    web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).

    Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully
    implemented
    and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
    this is
    an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all
    about.

    Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary
    to
    Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
    examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.
    lorlarz, Aug 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    On Aug 18, 3:47 pm, lorlarz <> wrote:
    > Crockford'sJavaScript,The Good Parts(a book review).
    > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    > world's
    > shortests books).
    >
    > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
    > _is_
    > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book onthe good partsofJavaScript
    > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It's like
    > how to play
    > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
    > With what
    > Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually  _use_javascripton the
    > web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
    >
    > Is this a weakness?  Yes.  Damned right.  CSS may not be fully
    > implemented
    > and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
    > this is
    > an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** whatJavaScriptis all
    > about.
    >
    > Fortunately, I have read about 20 goodJavaScriptbooks (and contrary
    > to
    > Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
    > examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.


    P.S. OTHER rather recent books I found plenty of reason to enjoy
    (good examples make good books):

    Pro JavaScript Design Patterns by Harmes & Dias (Apress,2008)
    jQuery in Action by Bibeault & Kayz (Manning, 2008)
    The Art and Science of JavaScript by Adams et al (Sitepoint, 2008)
    JavaScript Phrasebook by Wenz (Sams, 2007)
    Pro JavaScript Techniques by Resig (Apress, 2006)
    Simply JavaScript by Yank and Adams (Sitepoint, 2007)
    CSS, DHTML, & Ajax (4th ed.) by Teague (Peachpit, 2007)
    JavaScript, the Definitive Guide (5th ed.) by Flanagan (O’Reilly,
    2006) (I also read and worked through the earlier 4th ed., 2002)
    The JavaScript Anthology 101 Essential Tips, … by Edwards and Adams
    (Sitepoint, 2006)
    JavaScript Bible (5th ed.) by Goodman and Morrison (Wiley, 2004) and
    earlier editions.

    If you don't like any of those books, you must be nuts. Good examples
    make good books.

    and an oldie I still do not regret having read:
    JavaScript Application Cookbook by Bradenbaugh (O’Reilly, 1999) (an
    oldie, great in its day; still helpful)
    lorlarz, Aug 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. lorlarz <> writes:

    > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
    > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    > world's
    > shortests books).
    >
    > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
    > _is_
    > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
    > JavaScript
    > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like
    > how to play
    > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
    > With what
    > Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_
    > javascript on the
    > web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
    >
    > Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully
    > implemented
    > and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
    > this is
    > an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all
    > about.


    Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
    far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
    in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
    coders how to make effective use of the *language*.

    The language itself does NOT include any CSS, DOM, BOM or whatever,
    and there is at least one fairly popular implementation that doesn't
    address CSS etc at all. See: actionscript.

    Things are not as bad as back in the 90s, but in the whole DOM/CSS/BOM
    bag there is still an unreasonably large lump of compatibility crap to
    deal with, and putting all that into a book about "good coding
    practices" would dilute the good bits probably to the point of making
    them footnotes.

    --
    Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
    Joost Diepenmaat, Aug 18, 2008
    #3
  4. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    On Aug 18, 4:26 pm, Joost Diepenmaat <> wrote:
    > lorlarz <> writes:
    > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
    > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    > > world's
    > > shortests books).

    >
    > > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
    > > _is_
    > > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
    > > JavaScript
    > > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It's like
    > > how to play
    > > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
    > > With what
    > > Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually  _use_
    > > javascript on the
    > > web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).

    >
    > > Is this a weakness?  Yes.  Damned right.  CSS may not be fully
    > > implemented
    > > and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
    > > this is
    > > an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all
    > > about.

    >
    > Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
    > far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
    > in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
    > coders how to make effective use of the *language*.
    >
    > The language itself does NOT include any CSS, DOM, BOM or whatever,
    > and there is at least one fairly popular implementation that doesn't
    > address CSS etc at all. See: actionscript.
    >
    > Things are not as bad as back in the 90s, but in the whole DOM/CSS/BOM
    > bag there is still an unreasonably large lump of compatibility crap to
    > deal with, and putting all that into a book about "good coding
    > practices" would dilute the good bits probably to the point of making
    > them footnotes.
    >
    > --
    > Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript
    functions
    for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS
    are
    _javascript_ functions. AND, they are what allow much of the
    communication
    that is JavaScript in action. Examples:

    GetElementById(string which is element id);
    createElement(string which is element type);
    [element to appendTo].appendChild(variable representing new element);
    document.getElementById(elementName).value = variable or string;
    document.getElementById(elementName)style.display = "none";
    document.getElementById(elementName).innerHTML = "hi";

    Without such stuff there is NO javascript program that actually does
    anything
    in the browsers. NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you
    are
    happy with alerts. Really. Get real.
    lorlarz, Aug 18, 2008
    #4
  5. lorlarz <> writes:


    > Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript
    > functions
    > for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS
    > are
    > _javascript_ functions.


    [ blah blah blah ]

    > NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you
    > are
    > happy with alerts. Really. Get real.


    I wasn't talking about browsers. Anyway, what makes you think alerts
    are in the language?

    regardless of the title of the book, it's about ecmascript:

    http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm


    --
    Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
    Joost Diepenmaat, Aug 18, 2008
    #5
  6. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    On Aug 18, 4:46 pm, Joost Diepenmaat <> wrote:
    > lorlarz <> writes:
    > > Hey.  You really are being ridiculous.  The many many JavaScript
    > > functions
    > > for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS
    > > are
    > > _javascript_ functions.  

    >
    >  [ blah blah blah ]
    >
    > > NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you
    > > are
    > > happy with alerts.  Really.  Get real.

    >
    > I wasn't talking about browsers. Anyway, what makes you think alerts
    > are in the language?
    >
    > regardless of the title of the book, it's about ecmascript:
    >
    > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
    >
    > --
    > Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/


    Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book. It is about
    a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small subset).
    If you don't like reading books
    that show realistic examples, you might be confused. But, Crockford is
    way
    less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way covers JavaScript.

    If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.
    If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
    can put
    Crockford's principles to good use
    and learn much, much, much, much more of JavaScript and do
    everything.

    Good time to catch up
    now before the new revision of ecmascript comes out.
    lorlarz, Aug 18, 2008
    #6
  7. lorlarz <> writes:

    > Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book.


    I never claimed you did not.

    > It is about a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small
    > subset). If you don't like reading books that show realistic
    > examples, you might be confused.


    Or maybe I just don't like browsers. Please learn the difference
    between languages and libraries.

    > But, Crockford is way less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way
    > covers JavaScript.


    So what if he doesn't cover all of the browser model? Flanagan makes
    sweeping and incorrect claims about the language. Personally, I'd
    think you need at least both. Until someone comes along to write a
    complete and correct book.

    > If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.
    > If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
    > can put
    > Crockford's principles to good use
    > and learn much, much, much, much more of JavaScript and do
    > everything.


    So we agree you'd need both, then.

    > Good time to catch up
    > now before the new revision of ecmascript comes out.


    Good luck waiting for the MS implementation. Me, I need to get work
    done today.

    --
    Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
    Joost Diepenmaat, Aug 18, 2008
    #7
  8. lorlarz

    RobG Guest

    On Aug 19, 7:26 am, Joost Diepenmaat <> wrote:
    > lorlarz <> writes:
    > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
    > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    > > world's
    > > shortests books).

    >
    > > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
    > > _is_
    > > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
    > > JavaScript
    > > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It's like
    > > how to play
    > > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.

    [...]
    > Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
    > far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
    > in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
    > coders how to make effective use of the *language*.


    I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been
    called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the
    same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript". :)

    Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't
    bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if
    this book helps fix that, it can only do good.

    As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges.
    Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in
    about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is
    about 150 pages. Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the
    negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like
    his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors,
    just style or content gripes).


    --
    Rob
    RobG, Aug 19, 2008
    #8
  9. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    On Aug 18, 6:21 pm, RobG <> wrote:
    > On Aug 19, 7:26 am, Joost Diepenmaat <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > lorlarz <> writes:
    > > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
    > > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    > > > world's
    > > > shortests books).

    >
    > > > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
    > > > _is_
    > > > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
    > > > JavaScript
    > > > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It's like
    > > > how to play
    > > > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.

    > [...]
    > > Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
    > > far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
    > > in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
    > > coders how to make effective use of the *language*.

    >
    > I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now.  I expect it should have been
    > called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the
    > same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript".  :)
    >
    > Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't
    > bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if
    > this book helps fix that, it can only do good.
    >
    > As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges.
    > Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in
    > about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is
    > about 150 pages.  Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the
    > negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like
    > his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors,
    > just style or content gripes).
    >
    > --
    > Rob- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period. So,
    is Flanagan's
    book. It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is
    about something
    else. IT IS NOT. Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable
    because it
    does not cover enough of the langauge to use it. Flanagan does (to
    say the least).

    Crockford does some things better. True. That is his only claim to
    fame. After you
    know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a
    few aspects as
    he covers a small subset. Otherwise your know is less than
    incomplete. It is
    inadequate and you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of
    JavaScript
    programmer. That is the truth.

    Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes.
    It is
    not enough to do anything by itself. For any purpose for which
    ECMAScript aka
    JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*. Of course, those
    ignorant of
    JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
    (and Crockford's)
    YUI, but
    you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
    specifics of the
    language and it will be a crutch.
    lorlarz, Aug 19, 2008
    #9
  10. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    Typo correction: Of course what I meant below (in my quoted remarks)
    was
    " ... ECMAScript *or* JavaScript programmer ..."

    Let me add, the first line of Crockford's Preface to JavaScript, The
    Good Parts,
    reads:

    "This is a book about the JavaScript programming language ... "

    and then
    he soon says:

    "It is not exhaustive about the language and its quirks. It does not
    contain
    everything you/ll ever need to know"

    (and this is one tremendous gross and extreme understatement !!!!!!!)

    Flanagan's book is called: JavaScript, The Definitive Guide.



    On Aug 18, 7:19 pm, lorlarz <> wrote:
    > On Aug 18, 6:21 pm, RobG <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 19, 7:26 am, Joost Diepenmaat <> wrote:

    >
    > > > lorlarz <> writes:
    > > > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
    > > > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    > > > > world's
    > > > > shortests books).

    >
    > > > > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
    > > > > _is_
    > > > > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
    > > > > JavaScript
    > > > > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM?  Weird.  It'slike
    > > > > how to play
    > > > > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with..

    > > [...]
    > > > Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
    > > > far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
    > > > in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
    > > > coders how to make effective use of the *language*.

    >
    > > I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now.  I expect it should have been
    > > called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the
    > > same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript".  :)

    >
    > > Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't
    > > bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if
    > > this book helps fix that, it can only do good.

    >
    > > As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges.
    > > Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in
    > > about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is
    > > about 150 pages.  Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the
    > > negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like
    > > his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors,
    > > just style or content gripes).

    >
    > > --
    > > Rob- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period.  So,
    > is Flanagan's
    > book.  It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is
    > about something
    > else.  IT IS NOT.   Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable
    > because it
    > does not cover enough of the langauge to use it.  Flanagan does (to
    > say the least).
    >
    > Crockford does some things better.  True.  That is his only claim to
    > fame.  After you
    > know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a
    > few aspects as
    > he covers a small subset.  Otherwise your know is less than
    > incomplete.  It is
    > inadequate and you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of
    > JavaScript
    > programmer.  That is the truth.
    >
    > Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes.
    > It is
    > not enough to do anything by itself.  For any purpose for which
    > ECMAScript aka
    > JavaScript is used.  Fact.  *There is no UI*.  Of course, those
    > ignorant of
    > JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
    > (and Crockford's)
    > YUI, but
    > you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
    > specifics of the
    > language and it will be a crutch.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -
    lorlarz, Aug 19, 2008
    #10
  11. lorlarz

    Aaron Gray Guest

    "lorlarz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
    > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    > world's
    > shortests books).


    It was not as good a book as I was hoping for.

    It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the grammer.
    It missed out instanceof too.

    Read it quickly then passed it on to a friend to read.

    Pro Javascript Techniques was a bit crappy too, with things like 'self' used
    but not explained. Inconsistent code in examples calling functions that were
    not given.

    Pro Javascript Design Patterns seems better, just started reading it.

    Aaron
    Aaron Gray, Aug 19, 2008
    #11
  12. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    On Aug 18, 7:37 pm, "Aaron Gray" <> wrote:
    > "lorlarz" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
    > > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
    > > world's
    > > shortests books).

    >
    > It was not as good a book as I was hoping for.
    >
    > It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the grammer.
    > It missed out instanceof too.
    >
    > Read it quickly then passed it on to a friend to read.
    >
    > Pro Javascript Techniques was a bit crappy too, with things like 'self' used
    > but not explained. Inconsistent code in examples calling functions that were
    > not given.
    >
    > Pro Javascript Design Patterns seems better, just started reading it.
    >
    > Aaron


    Aaron

    The Pro JavaScript Design Patterns book is a better book. Much more
    there on
    how to do things right. Its coverage of the language, like
    Crockford's , is partial
    & minimal (because the book is not out to cover the language, but show
    examples of
    uses of design patterns with the JS language!). Unfortunately,
    Crockford was not
    as clear that it was really just that sort of thing *he* was doing
    too!!; in fact,
    he kind of pretends to be covering the "good parts of the language"
    while he misses
    at least half (or more) of any "good parts" necessary just to use the
    language --
    thus misses likely much more than half of what could be considered
    "good".

    From what I can tell Crockford is just a bit "off" (irrational and
    pompous).
    He decided in 2001 there was no other "good book" and he has never
    changed
    his mind (old foggy). And he apparently has missed MANY !!: Here's
    some, each of
    which would do any JavaScripter MORE good than his short limited book
    (I guarantee it):

    Professional Ajax (2nd ed.) by Zakas, McPeak, & Fawcett (Wrox, 2007)
    Pro JavaScript Design Patterns by Harmes & Dias (Apress,2008)
    jQuery in Action by Bibeault & Kayz (Manning, 2008)
    The Art and Science of JavaScript by Adams et al (Sitepoint, 2008)
    JavaScript Phrasebook by Wenz (Sams, 2007)
    Pro JavaScript Techniques by Resig (Apress, 2006)
    Simply JavaScript by Yank and Adams (Sitepoint, 2007)
    CSS, DHTML, & Ajax (4th ed.) by Teague (Peachpit, 2007)
    JavaScript, the Definitive Guide (5th ed.) by Flanagan (O’Reilly,
    2006) (I also read and worked through the earlier 4th ed., 2002)
    The JavaScript Anthology 101 Essential Tips, … by Edwards and Adams
    (Sitepoint, 2006)
    JavaScript Bible (5th ed.) by Goodman and Morrison (Wiley, 2004) and
    earlier editions
    lorlarz, Aug 19, 2008
    #12
  13. On Aug 18, 5:19 pm, lorlarz <> wrote:

    > Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period.


    So he didn't drift off the topic he selected. Good for him and good
    for his editor.


    > So, is Flanagan's book.


    Flangan's book is not about JavaScript "period". Flanagan's book is
    about JavaScript, browser scripting and some applications outside of
    the browser.


    > It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is
    > about something else. IT IS NOT.



    > Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable
    > because it does not cover enough of the langauge to use it.


    Crockford's book is not meant to be read by a beginner. He states that
    somewhere. I wish there were more books like Crockford's where a
    thoughtful JavaScript programmer has written down lessons learned and
    some reasons why.

    There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.


    > Flanagan does (to say the least).


    There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.


    > Crockford does some things better. True.


    Great. Would you rather he had not shared them?


    > That is his only claim to fame. After you
    > know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a
    > few aspects as he covers a small subset.


    I believe that is exactly why he wrote the book. Again it seems like
    he achieved his goal.


    > Otherwise your know is less than incomplete. It is inadequate and
    > you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of
    > JavaScript programmer. That is the truth.


    You seem to have missed the point of his book and want to publicly
    display that you have.


    > Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes.
    > It is not enough to do anything by itself.


    It makes for a nice summary of his writing and videos on the web.


    > For any purpose for which
    > ECMAScript aka
    > JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*.


    JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover
    it then.


    > Of course, those ignorant of
    > JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
    > (and Crockford's) YUI,


    There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't
    see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.


    > but
    > you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
    > specifics of the
    > language and it will be a crutch.


    The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information
    about JavaScript.


    I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read
    even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own
    practices.


    What is your point anyway?

    Peter
    Peter Michaux, Aug 19, 2008
    #13
  14. lorlarz

    dhtml Guest

    lorlarz wrote:
    > On Aug 18, 7:37 pm, "Aaron Gray" <> wrote:
    >> "lorlarz" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>


    [snip]
    >
    > The Pro JavaScript Design Patterns book is a better book. Much more
    > there on
    > how to do things right.



    You've provided no example of such 'right' programming, so we have no
    way of assessing what you think is right or wrong.


    > From what I can tell Crockford is just a bit "off" (irrational and
    > pompous).


    What does your personal judgment about Doug's personality have to do
    with the book?


    > He decided in 2001 there was no other "good book" and he has never
    > changed
    > his mind (old foggy).
    >


    [snip]

    The only thing that is 'foggy' is your understanding of what EcmaScript
    is. You can potentially change this by reading the ECMA-262 manual,
    online, for free. There's an HTML edition on bclary.com.

    As Joost and Peter pointed out to you, the books you listed are mostly
    related to browser scripting and JavaScript libraries. I see that your
    book selection includes a book of how to use jQuery.


    Garrett
    dhtml, Aug 19, 2008
    #14
  15. lorlarz meinte:
    > But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
    > JavaScript
    > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird.


    Because it's about *JavaScript*. And he probably didn't want to write
    zillions of pages dealing with all those browser peculiarities. And add
    errata every other week. And still being "incomplete". And just doing a
    rehash of all the ressources found on the web.

    > Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary
    > to
    > Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
    > examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.


    Interesting. I haven't read another book than Crockford's and still can
    write decent JS manipulating the DOM.

    However, Crockford had me convinced to get off all this
    pseude-class-based JS style. And I'm pretty sure my JS is now shorter,
    faster and more JS than before.

    Gregor


    --
    http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
    http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
    http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 19, 2008
    #15
  16. Aaron Gray meinte:

    > It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the
    > grammer.


    As he says: He want's to concentrate on a small subset of JS. The Good
    Parts. And leave out all the stuff he deems a burden and/or superfluous.
    He also leaves out all String methods. Who cares? Read about them on any
    readily available WWW ressource like mozilla.org.

    Gregor


    --
    http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
    http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
    http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 19, 2008
    #16
  17. Gregor Kofler, Aug 19, 2008
    #17
  18. lorlarz meinte:

    >> --
    >> Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/


    Could you post correctly. Puhleze.

    > Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book. It is about
    > a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small subset).


    Cool. That's what I bought it for. To learn about the Good Parts of
    Java/ECMAScript. I wasn't disappointed.

    > If you don't like reading books
    > that show realistic examples, you might be confused. But, Crockford is
    > way
    > less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way covers JavaScript.


    He covers the Good Parts of it.

    > If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.


    Crockford never claims to do that.

    > If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
    > can put
    > Crockford's principles to good use


    See.

    Gregor



    --
    http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
    http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
    http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 19, 2008
    #18
  19. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    On Aug 18, 8:21 pm, Peter Michaux <> wrote:
    > On Aug 18, 5:19 pm, lorlarz <> wrote:
    >

    [snip]
    >
    > There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.


    I agree. You must read several books, preferable loaded with working
    examples. Nothing like that in Crockford, so what he offers is
    something
    else. Style advice and principles of good coding, and that is all.
    Very little,
    esp. since dealing with things that AFFECT the UI is a huge topic area
    not
    dealt with at all by him.

    [snip]


    > > For any purpose for which
    > > ECMAScript aka
    > > JavaScript is used.  Fact. *There is no UI*.

    >
    > JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover
    > it then.


    Indeed JS has no UI of its own. What I meant of course is that
    Crockford
    covers NONE of the functions that interact with and change the visible
    components
    of the DOM (that which changes the UI for the user in response to
    interaction, or
    as time passes)

    >
    > > Of course, those ignorant of
    > > JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
    > > (and Crockford's) YUI,

    >
    > There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't
    > see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.
    >
    > > but
    > > you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
    > > specifics of the
    > > language and it will be a crutch.


    Leaving out coverage of good uses of functions that manipulate CSS and
    DOM
    is a huge incompleteness to any presentation of JavaScript. It is not
    like
    there are not better and worse ways to do things here. For example,
    one
    big issue is CSS vs DOM manipulation, which both can accomplish the
    same thing.
    How to do thing correctly with good combinations of DOM features and
    CSS and
    then using the related functions is a HUGE area where we need to
    develop good
    practice.

    I am being to doubt tha Crockford ever deals with anything people see
    in a
    browser, this extreme larger oversight is so tremedous.

    >
    > The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information
    > about JavaScript.
    >
    > I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read
    > even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own
    > practices.
    >
    > What is your point anyway?


    My point is: Even as a book that is trying to present just some best
    practices
    and principles for doing things, this book does less than half a job.
    The book, claiming to cover the 'good parts' of JavaScript is really
    so misleading
    in making that claim as to be fraudulent. Crockford claims he does
    twice a job
    than what he actually does (and probably much less). The DOM
    manipulation vs
    CSS issue and best practices and principles to use here would fill 300
    pages
    (being just the same sort of practices and principles subset book that
    Crockford's
    is).


    Crockford's description of what he is offering is so inaccurate as to
    be delusional.

    By the way, I am no JS library lover. I do all raw and from scratch
    in most of
    my programs. SO I DO KNOW OF WHAT I SPEAK.
    lorlarz, Aug 19, 2008
    #19
  20. In comp.lang.javascript message <468580d0-796d-46bb-b179-0cae2c710c8c@26
    g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:47:56, lorlarz
    <> posted:

    >I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    That's clearly not a necessary condition; it may not even be sufficient.
    >_is_
    >smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
    >JavaScript
    >and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird.


    Because JavaScript is independent of CSS and the browser DOM.

    Those who want to use it only in other situations will not want to buy
    irrelevant material. It can for example be used, in Windows, with WSH
    CScript and WScript; for that, it is often better than the more
    commonly-used VBscript which appeals only to the simple-minder herd that
    find it comfortable to rely on Microsoft as much as they can.

    Of course, a well-written similar-sized book on CSS, and one on each of
    the commoner DOMs, would also be worth having available, for those in
    need of such.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
    <URL:http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ;
    NOT <URL:http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/>: news:borland.* Guidelines
    Dr J R Stockton, Aug 19, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    585
    Keith Thompson
    Mar 31, 2007
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    940
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=
    Apr 12, 2007
  3. kizk
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    562
  4. lorlarz
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    95
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Aug 21, 2008
  5. John G Harris

    Crockford's 'The Good Parts' : a short review

    John G Harris, Jul 11, 2009, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    255
    John G Harris
    Jul 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page